By johnhunt92 -
February 5th 2010 @ 6:30am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Rugby on the canvas, can it climb back up?
Friday week sees the beginning of a new Super 14 season, which is make or break for the Australian Rugby Union. Australia’s number two code at the turn of the century is now fading out of the public’s mind and is now below football.
This was unthinkable back in 2003 after the success of the World Cup.
2009 was terrible for John O’Neil and his team. Only the Wellington Phoenix is below the Super 14 clubs in terms of TV ratings as the boring kicking game in Test matches affected crowds in a year where the Wallabies were woeful and not winning.
Ironically, Super 14 rugby is played under the ELVs.
Off the field, problems also arose.
The ARU’s financial position went south as the squandering of the already shrinking revenues from the 2003 World Cup continued due to tribalism and poor management. Australia won a fifth Super 14 franchise, despite comical antics from the ARU and the Melbourne Rebels that made the dealings in the TV show The Office look more professional.
The ARU also had no luck in pressuring the Northern Unions to adopt ELVs for Test rugby, causing an impasse between SANZAR and the Home Unions.
While 2010 looks bleak, there are some positive signs.
The ARU is forcing referees (the cause of most of the ugly play) to allowing attacking play or face sacking. Despite a bleak home season, the Young Wallabies’ Grand Slam tour showed promise and hope for 2011.
More importantly, the ARU’s loveless deal with Channel Seven expires, allowing them to force Seven to show more coverage or negotiate a better deal with another network.
Still the jury is out on rugby and the Super 14 season will be an indication of the health of the game.
The ACT and NSW should make the finals or be competitive, but the crowds and TV ratings will be a true indication.
Rugby enters a new, exciting decade with fear and trepidation, something a sport cannot afford in modern times
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(178)
Mike G said | February 5th 2010 @ 8:03am | Report comment
A little alarmist, but fair enough…As with any sport, teams will usually do through down cycles, but in this case it seems the code (in Aus, at least), has been to the depths of this cycle & is now on the up…I hope
Broggie said | February 9th 2010 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Anyone living Nth Gold Coast who can tell me which pubs show the Super 14 games? We’re new to the area, don’t have Fox and don’t want to miss our teams matches. NOt had much luck phoning the local bars directly
Dogz R Barkn said | February 5th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Can I just say one thing.
That series of S14 ads on Fox is quite lame.
Chris said | February 7th 2010 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more – how about a reel of tries being scored and big tackles. It’s the same formula rugby league uses every year and they are the only sport that didn’t go backwards in 2009.
sunshine said | February 5th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I don’t see how we are going to spin the turnstiles and turn our sport into the elite winter code in the coming years.
After all the talk in the off season about returning to expansive, attacking, attractive, running rugby we witnessed a very dour preseason game between the 2 flagship clubs for this year S14’s.
In a trial match we had Phil Waugh electing to take a kick for goal and this was after only last week talking about the ability they have in the backline and how they deserve to see more ball. What better situation 20m out from the line then to attempt a set play that you had been rehearsing over the summer.
In case you didn’t notice the 4000 people were booing, both brumby and tah kin alike.
And then defended it by calling it “winning rugby” please see “ugly rugby”. Some things never change.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
At the Tahs v Reds in Lismore the same thing happened when Reds opted for the penalty.
I think fans can’t work out why in a trial the teams aren’t working on their set pieces. Like it’s a bloody trial for cripes sake. No one actually worries about the score board too much do they?
I’d rather see them working their lineouts and scrums, and actually practicing applying pressure. And God forbid learning to aim for bonus points.
formeropenside said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
You also need to practice taking kicks at goal under match pressure, I suppose.
Bay35Pablo said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Also the restart from a missed penalty
King of the Gorganites said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
did you watch the actual game- or just read to newspaper story on it?
Campbell Watts said | February 5th 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
The Tahs will be just as boring this year as last. Whats changed? Captain the same, forward pack the same, back line worse if anything (excluding Anesi). When the pressure comes on the same habits will show up – win ugly!
Waugh has to go, as I see him as the main problem here – he’s just too dominant in the team thinking. He was ATROCIOUS in his after-match interviews last year – whinge and whine!
Temba said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
“The ACT and NSW should make the finals or be competitive, but the crowds and TV ratings will be a true indication. ”
I am sure the Crusaders, Bulls, Sharks, Hurricanes and Chiefs will have something to say about that.
Maybe one of them but not both. Tough year ahead for the Tahs, they will not get out of their forward based game and the focus will be more on attack from other teams. ACT and Reds have the best chance for one of them to make the semi’s
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
I’m gonna do something a little unusual here and stick up for Australian rugby.
SANZAR are about to announce a broadcasting deal which may not cover all expenditure but will at least keep Australian rugby afloat for the next five years. The challenge for the ARU to to increase their revenue from attendance, sponsorship and the rights to their inbound tours, but they’re not about to fall off the face of the earth just because they’re falling from the Great Australian Conscience.
Personally, I think the ARU are hedging too much on winning the World Cup, but that’s not the same as being at death’s door.
katzilla said | February 5th 2010 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
‘I’m gonna do something a little unusual here and stick up for Australian rugby.’
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo OJJJJJJJJJJJ!!!!!!!
Go_the_Wannabe's said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:36am | Report comment
I too was sadly disillusioned after the 2003 RWC……..Wannabe’s were on the up, the coffers were full (and it was promised to be put back into the grass roots), professionalism was in full swing, all the decent mungos were swapping codes (even the good juniors like Blocker Roach’s son…….where is he now????).
Here we go I naively thought……..a golden age for Wannabe rugby……how the Sam Hill did they stuff it up????
Lets hope the tackler-must-roll-away-and-get-to-feet rule encourages attacking rugby and gets rid of that incessant kick-kick-kick-and-hope-for-a-fumble-or-penalty otherwise known as whistle ball has been killed off and buried forever.
End of rant.
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Well, the Golden Age was 1999-2001. Imagine if Australia had hosted the World Cup in 1999 instead of 2003.
Things change quickly in rugby. In 1996-97 rugby was booming in NZ. They got 46,000 to the first Super 12 final at Eden Park. Then in 1998 the wheels fell off spectacularly and I don’t think rugby in NZ has been the same since.
Sam Taulelei said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Hey OJ, exactly how did the wheels fall off?
I have different memories of rugby in NZ at that time or are you referring to the record run of losses the All Blacks suffered that year?
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Yeah, I think that losing streak, the loss in the 1999 semi and the failure to win back the Bledisloe each year were a series of stomach punches that NZ rugby has never fully recovered from, because they were the first signs in the professional era that NZ rugby could be weak.
sheek said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Sam,
On another matter, the good people at ’scrum.com’ provided me with the info relating to the IRB centenary matches of 1986. So I didn’t need to fork out $22.50 to the NZ rugby museum! Will post the teams in due corse…..
Sam Taulelei said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Great stuff Sheek ,looking forward to your post.
rugbyfuture said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
roach didn’t swap codes, he went to riverview.
Brett McKay said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
and has been with Cronulla now for a season or two, from memory…
Lindommer said | February 6th 2010 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Since leaving Riverview in 2005 Dan Roach has played for Northern Suburbs (and been picked in the Junior Waratahs), Cronulla (where he ran foul of the NRL’s under 20 rules), Northern Suburbs again, Ulster and West Harbour seconds in 2009. He’s currently plying his trade at Monteux, a minor French club.
I don’t think Dan can cut the mustard at the elite level of pro rugby.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | February 5th 2010 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Didn’t he play rugby there?
rugbyfuture said | February 5th 2010 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
yes, the statement presented itself as to say that the junior roach had swapped codes to rugby union, he didn’t, he went to riverview, so he played rugby union and then switched to league later on. It is the irony of rugby league that they were paid well, so they ended up sending their kids to private schools, and then they ended up playing rugby union.
sheek said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Johnhunt,
My first observation re your post, is that rugby union has got what it deserves. Arrogant, short-sighted administrators pursuing personal, self-interested agendas.
The financial windfall accumulated by John O’Neill on his first watch as ARU supremo, was wasted by Gary Flowers & his cohorts. Then O’Neill, on his return, has tried to go down the same path – ‘top-down’ – as previously, when it’s obvious to those on the ground, the game is bleeding at junior level & in club-land.
A different approach is now required. What worked well 1996-03, is not necessarily relevant to 2008 onwards. I like the new super rugby concept (S15) to begin in 2011. But it won’t mask other problems in our game – low player participation levels; low professional base; nil national comp structure, dysfunctional club premier rugby structure, etc.
Not to mention a game that is struggling for relevancy in the current world climate. This might be the toughest gig of all – trying to sell a a game that is so desperately boring to so many people (apart from the already converted zealots).
I also think you are unduly harsh on the referees. They are merely the voice-piece, the messenger, of the lawmakers. Referees have to protect their livelihood also. It’s the lawmakers who are the culprits of the piece.
The IRB isn’t worth feeding. Professional rugby is now in the entertainment industry, but is struggling for relevancy. The game needs to attract fans, sponsors, media moguls, etc, if it wants to expand & develop. Something that the lawmakers seem unwilling to acknowledge.
‘Improvise, adapt, overcome’. This is the motto of the USMC, but it appears lost on the IRB, who appears determined to keep its head firmly buried somewhere between the 1950s & 60s!
Some Roarers proclaim regularly that rugby union will never overtake NRL or AFL. I would dispute this on the basis of the potential raw product & quality of players.
But they are right when you consider the moronic dogma of rugby administrators & lawmakers.
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Sheek, how is rugby struggling for relevancy in the current world climate? I’m not sure what you mean by that.
sheek said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
OJ,
Perhaps I was too general. I can only go on my perception, & as they say, perception is reality!
In Australia, rugby union is running 4th out of 4 footy codes over a range of indicators. That much is pretty well fact.
Worldwide, the game enjoys varying degrees of popularity. It remains well behind football in the UK however, & may have lost ground in the past 10 years in France. Rugby has failed to significantly make an indentation into the north American & Asian markets.
Yes, I’m sure rugby is better placed in these regions than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago. But……….
Anyway, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but form where I’m looking the game is moving snail’s pace forward when it could be moving a lot faster. So I guess I’m grumpy about the rate of improvement!!!
Especially here in Oz…..
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Personally, I think rugby is fortunate to have the level of international competition that it enjoys since it’s only a few key areas in each hemisphere holding it together.
It strikes me as unrealistic to expect other countries to be anything other than tier-two or tier-three countries at this point in time. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible for a sport to grow at the rate that people around here would like, which, as far as I can ascertain, is overnight.
Lazza said | February 5th 2010 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
It will grow if you can make those 2nd and 3rd tier nations competitive. Getting belted 100-0 is not going to capture the imagination of the sporting public in those countries.
ohtani's jacket said | February 5th 2010 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
There’s only so much that can be done at the grassroots or developmental level, though. You can’t make those countries competitive without introducing professional competitions and that’s not an easy thing to do in countries where there is no rugby culture.
True Tah said | February 5th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
I dont think rugby has gone backwards in France over the past few years. Increased attendances and participation rates, the ability to draw players like Carter, Wilkinson, Hernandez and pay them well. The issue for France is to grow the profile of the game in the north moreso.
In England, rugby is always going to be second fiddle to futbol, but despite living in its shadow, a successful and competitive rugby competition can be run and one that is experiencing growing attendances, many clubs are looking at increasing their grounds capacities.
My main gripe with the IRB is that it seems to be focusing on countries like China, at the expense of other nations (Georgia, Madagascar, Moldova). Awarding the 2019 IRB WC to Japan is the perfect example of this…how can Japan ever host the WC before Argentina ever does? Admittedly the $$$ in Argentina are probably not as good, but Japan has contributed bugger in terms of rugby all relative to Argentina.
The Bush said | February 5th 2010 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
I was attempting to write an article about this exact point. Let’s move on from wasted money in markets like America and China where there is already too much sport. Stop chasing the all mighty dollar and lets think about where rugby might actually become popular?
Georgia has seem amazing growth in the last decade, the Moldovan team was recently voted the nations best sporting team (about five years ago), where was the funding for them then? What about Sri Lanka, where there are 100 000+ players? Why aren’t they better, getting more exposure? Madagascar is also a good point, it is practically their national sport, yet I’ve never heard a cent being sent their way…
The IRB should drop this scatter gun approach to trying to grow rugby just in rich countries that will never take it up… why not focus on one country at a time and turn tha into a competitive nation and then move on? Let’s get Georgia up to scratch, then Kenya, then Moldova, then Russia etc… one at a time then in twelve years we’ll have three or four more competative nations.
Sam el Perro said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Indeed the IRB website proclaims that there is 121,000 registered players in Sri Lanka and 100 clubs. So each club has over 1200 players on average? Since the IRB says that Australia only has 84,450 players, is there anyone here who seriously thinks that rugby is much bigger in Sri Lanka than Australia?
How about China? According to the IRB there is 1 registered club with 4810 players and 55 referees.
IRB stats are, well, rubbery at best.
Siva Samoa said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:14am | Report comment
i coached a year of rugby in sri lanka and it very big. school rugby has crowds of over 10,000 to their games and club rugby is also popular. i think its second only to cricket . the irb playing numbers are right but like japan and america it won’t compete against the top teams.
Sam el Perro said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Siva, after your earlier claims about the Gold Coast tournament which proved utterly false you’ll forgive me if I wait for someone reliable to describe the state of rugby in Sri Lanka.
Siva Samoa said | February 6th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
what was false about my claim about the gold coast sevens ? i claim it was bigger and better than the 2008 tournament and had more international teams in it than the previous years. watch this 1st xv school games from youtube and you notice the players aren’t big enough to compete against tier one countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns7kh7UBwsM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AxcFo1rwLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVsp9DKm9Ng&NR=1
Sam el Perro said | February 6th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Nice work re-wording your false claims about the “very popular” Gold Coast tournament. Nice sidestep of the fact that the IRB figures which claim that Sri Lanka’s playing figures are 150% of Australia’s as well.
With all of this sidestepping you must be a good player, even if you are a poor debater.
The Bush said | February 6th 2010 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Whilst the IRB figures are certainly far from reliable, why would they go to absurd lengths to fib about how many players there are in Sri Lanka, if they won’t do the same for countries where people would probably believe there are more registered players? Surely you’d just lie about both, yet the site seems to at least attempt accuaracy, for example the Australian playing numbers have dropped every year for about three or four years since i’ve been visiting the IRB website, which is probably pretty accuarate.
Whilst I’m sure 121 000 players in Sri Lanka isn’t correct, I don’t see why it would be totally wrong just because they don’t appear to have enough clubs to support this. People play in schools too remember, are they counted? I don’t know nor do I care. What I do know for the point I was making is that rugby is a major sport in Sri Lanka (distantly after cricket). Many countries fervently support a sport that they suck at. It neither provers nor disproves its popularity. And as for whether or not Rugby is bigger in Sri Lanka than in Australia, it may well be, but unfortuantely I don’t ready Sri Lankan sports newspapers daily… but it wouldn’t be hard to be more talked about and noticed than Rugby in Australia.
True Tah said | February 6th 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Sam
the Sri Lankan figure is 100,000 including both CLUBS and SCHOOLS.
At schoolboy level, rugby is booming, but most guys stop after leaving school. Look whenever the Sri Lankan cricket team travel and sometimes they play touch footy, and the ball they use is a Gilbert, not a Sherrin or a Steeden.
PastHisBest said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:20am | Report comment
“Nice sidestep of the fact that the IRB figures which claim that Sri Lanka’s playing figures are 150% of Australia’s as well.”
He said, she said, Sam. Just because you choose to disbelieve it doesn’t make it false.
They have something like 400 schools playing in each of the seven provinces and the SLRU strat plan states that will increase to 1200 in the next two years. Staggering growth.
Justin said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I played against Sri Lanka back in the late 90s in Melbourne. Not to put too fine a point on it, while they were willing we put over 70 points on them. They would be lucky to beat a 2nd grade Melbourne side. So you can imagine how much improvement they need to get anywhere even someone like Singapore.
Siva Samoa said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
sam el perro. i don’t know what your on about but i said what i said and if you don’t like it thats your problem. a few tier 2 playing countries have more rugby playing numbers than australia like japan, sri lanka and usa. just like many small rugby nations have more rugby players than nz rugby league.
Siva Samoa said | February 6th 2010 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
google this ‘Asanga to carry Sri Lanka’s case at next IRB meeting’ and click on the pdf file. it tells you that sri lanka was the number one rugby playing nation in asia in terms of the number of rugby players and afffirmed.
anything else you need sam el perro ?
Sam el Perro said | February 7th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Siva, why the mention of rugby league? Why the need to turn this in to a code war?
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
i dont know much about rugby in SL, but it wouldnt suprise me if it was big there.
murali was a promising rugby player before he stuck with cricket.
Siva Samoa said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
rugby is the number one winter sport in sri lanka and the second biggest sport after cricket.
Working Class Rugger said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
The Bush
The major issue with Rugby vs League discussion involving international expansion that in many people minds the US in particular is the golden goose of potential growth. I’m as guilty of it as anyone and take an active interest in the development of the game there.
However, your argument that the IRB should take its focus of the Americas and Chinas of this world to greater assist the percieved neglected Unions isn’t quite correct.
First of all, the IRB only invest around $1.5 million USD annually in the States. Most the development there is actually done off their own backs.
Second, in terms of Asia the IRB haven’t put there eggs in just one basket. China is a big growth opportunity but the IRB has for several years now invested heavily in the overall growth of Rugby continent wide. The introduction of the Asian 5 Nations tournament is a highly successful intiative that has lead to very positive growth spread across all the competing Nations in its 5 divisions.
In regards to Africa. The IRB has targeted Unions in the region. On the top of its list is in fact Kenya. Alongside the Kenyan Rugby Football Union and the Kenyan Government the IRB has committed itself to get the game in every school in the country within the next few years.
And finally Europe. While Asia is the games fastest growth region Europe wouldn’t be too far behind. The Russian Rugby Championship is progressing nicely, the German Rugby Bundesliga has expanded to a 10 team Championship, the Georgian Govt has announced plans for a huge Rugby specific facilties in Tbilisi, the Nederlands Rugby Union has not only intiated their LOOT development program but have also established their first Rugby Academy with 3 more on the way, Belgium has seen a significant investment via its Govt, the Ukrainian Rugby Union will see the 1st edition of its new Pro Rugby Championship start on March 13 and the second season of the Superiberica de Rugby will start its second season in August with 2 new ( and most likely Portugese) teams joining the 6 Spanish foundations clubs.
So though there does only ever seem to be interest in the States the IRB has been working hard on spreading the game worldwide. Its just to many the US is the holy grail of sports. And you also have to account for FIRA who have also been doing some great work not only in Europe but North Africa aswell.
Rod said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
I don’t remember RU being the second sport in the early 2000s, it was # 1 during the WC and that’s all, it’s back to where it’s always been now, it has it’s niche market in Australia and that’s probably the way it’ll stay.
And please no one come in here and say I’m trolling because quite frankly, I’m not, I’m telling the truth.
RU has it’s highs and it’s lows in Australia, history has a funny habit of repeating itself, we actually punch well above our weight in the union code and you can see this simply by looking at the results over the last 2 decades.
I don’t think the crowds are going to improve at all really seeing as Melbourne is coming in next year and the fact that the S15 comp will be twice as long as it is now thus going head to head more with AFL and the NRL.
mitzter said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Yes I don’t think RU was ever number 2 – behind what? AFL? RL was always more popular so at best it could be described as third.
I agree with sheek about your attack on referees – sure they make mistakes, some have very little understanding of the scrum, some want the ball released ridiculously fast, some allow tacklers to lie around anywhere etc.
But stifling attack and encouraging ‘ugly play’ i would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of cheating players and unimaginative coaches. We have tried blowing the whistle less and all it leads to is more penalties going on.
Suspend cheating players, slowly but surely we’ll see a return to law
Travis said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
RU “Australia’s number two code at the turn of the century”!!! OMG – what world were you living in johnhunt92?
RU had a good run for 6 weeks when the 2003 RWC was on. Only because there was nothing else being played at the same time!
Baz35 said | February 5th 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Yeah, I think others have beaten me to it, but I’ll go anyway….
By what set of metrics was Rugby the number 2 code in Australia at the turn of the century?
-participation?
-attendance?
-TV ratings / revenues?
-general media exposure?
-any other relevant measure?
Now, Rugby may have had soccer covered in some of these measures but a mile off on participation, in particular. I could be wrong but I can’t see how, apart from perhaps during a world cup, that Union was ahead of Rugby League in any of these measures, let-a-lone enough of them to warrant even a fleeting contemplation of it ever being the number 2 code!
Clumsy assertion!
katzilla said | February 5th 2010 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Lol doesnt take much to get the Trolls out from under the bridge.
RAGGEEE!! Rugby wasn’t number two sport! GAHHHH! WIFEPUNCH!
Shodan said | February 5th 2010 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
So, hows that bridge been katizilla?
Republican said | February 5th 2010 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
When pray tell, was Union ever ‘Australia’s number two code’?
Certainly not in my life time.
Katipo said | February 5th 2010 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Maybe he meant rugby was the number twos of the football codes.
Norm said | February 5th 2010 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Maybe he meant at the beginning of the twentieth century.
funmaster said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Just wondering…..how many sports do you guys watch in australia? In the netherlands its all about hockey, handball and football. (But iam south african born) GO SHARKS!!!
rugbyfuture said | February 5th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
football, Aussie Football, Rugby, League, tennis, swimming, cricket, netball, probs the biguns, maybe golf too
most sports have a decent, but relatively small following
Realist said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
The most popular spectator sports in Australia are cricket, Australian rules football and rugby league. Rugby union is a niche sport in Australia.
rugbyfuture said | February 6th 2010 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
runher off realist, if its a niche sport is certainly gets a lot of coverage then doesnt it? he asked how many sports we atched in australia, and it seems, although rugby may be a “niche” sport according to some, it is broadcast enough to be considered much more, also you forgot football(soccer) which is quite similar in terms of proffesional coverage, you’re just being idiotic and trying to justify your nature.
funmaster said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
You didnt mention hockey rugbyfuture. I was under the impression austalia is quite fierce. But i guesse it doesnt get so much tv audiences.
rugbyfuture said | February 5th 2010 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
they do really well at the grassroots and national rep level, not much else
Crashy said | February 6th 2010 @ 5:43am | Report comment
There was a national survey produed by the ABS that confirmed that Rugby was the most supported code.
This was in about 2003 or so from memory when we were doing well. Not surprising if you think about it where Victorians generally dont watch League and NSWelshman dont watch AFL ( in any great capacity). By default of Rugby being on average most aussie’s second code at the time, it came out that more Australians supported rugby as a whole than any other code. I think that was what is being referred to above.
It was only for a year and I would suggest AFL / soccer has won that one every year since.
Things move in cycles so I wouldnt get too excited about Australian rugby dying on the vine just yet. We simply arent winning games so that has a huge impact.
The Socceroos have just slipped to 25th in the world and I would argue that they have had they time in the sun. Obviously this year’s world cup will give it massive exposure..
MV Dave said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:10am | Report comment
“The Socceroos have just slipped to 25th in the world and I would argue that they have had they time in the sun. Obviously this year’s world cup will give it massive exposure..” Contradictory statements if ever i’ve read any.
The Socceroos are about to have a massive ‘time in the sun’ with the WC. Their FIFA ratings have fluctuated up and down a little for the past year or two and doesnt make much difference to their popularity. They are by far the most popular of any of the national football teams.
Realist said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Socceroos are the most popular national football team. The Kangaroos are probably ahead of the Wallabies at the moment. Television ratings seem to indicate the Kangaroos are well ahead of the Wallabies.
Froar said | February 7th 2010 @ 4:06am | Report comment
I think they have had their time in the sun however I do think they will remain popular. They still fail to fill stadiums and the public awareness of most of their matches is usually near zero. Does anybody remember who they had to beat to qualify? This wc is not the same as the last where they befited from the dramatic qualification and the fact that it was the first time in ages we qualified. The public awareness and hype just isn’t there in the same way this time.
Froar said | February 7th 2010 @ 4:31am | Report comment
I don’t know about by far the most popular. Maybe once every four years. You hardly see loads if people wearing socceroos shirts or even talking about them. Most sports fans couldn’t even tell you the entire side I’d say.
Polis said | February 7th 2010 @ 4:42am | Report comment
You can’t be the most popular when you can’t fill the SFS or Bruce Stadium.
MV Dave said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:48am | Report comment
The Socceroos averaged 57,000 for their home qualifying games and didnt play any other country in the top 30 world rankings! Imagine if they were playing European or Sth American teams to qualify the grounds would be full every time.
BTW What were the crowds like for the RU or RL teams qualifying matches for their WCs? The Socceroos did fill the SFS for the only recent game there vs Holland, over 40,000 for a practice match!
MV Dave said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:43am | Report comment
And tell me which people could name the entire RL or RU national teams except for hard core supporters. In Melb most people still dont understand about the 2 different types of Rugby. Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell are known around the world more so than any player from one of the other codes.
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 7:02am | Report comment
your right mv dave. the socceroos has come long way and its now the nations number one football national team. the socceroos playing in the world cup and many australians playing in professional teams in europe has given soccer in australia a major boost and profile.
i don’t think you can add rugby league to that mix. they might be popular among league fans in australia but overseas they are nobobys. the wallabies would come second to the socceroo’s with the kangaroo’s a distance third.
Froar said | February 7th 2010 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
They were getting similar crowds ten years ago. Didn’t make them number one then. It wasn’t until someone published an article on this site that all the blinkers football supporters found another pretentious bandwagon to jump on. You can go to the local pub in Sydney and the socceroos will lose to the local trivia night hands down.
People still laugh overseas when you mention Australia and football. Some of you need to get out of Australia. Maybe getting out pf Melbourne would be a great start.
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
mate – people couldnt name more than a handful of socceroos. cahill, kewel, schwartzer, emmerton, kennedy… who else is there?
MV Dave said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
” Does anybody remember who they had to beat to qualify? ” Just trying to remember who the RU and RL teams beat to qualify for their last WCs?…Perhaps one of the 75,000 (midweek winter match) that attended the MCG vs Japan or 70,000 at OP in Sydenee vs China may be able to help. l was one of the 50,000 capacity crowd at ES in Melb when they played Qatar so know they beat them.
“They still fail to fill stadiums and the public awareness of most of their matches is usually near zero” Says who? You? Read my post below re attendance at Qualifying games.
Polis said | February 7th 2010 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Still didn’t fill the sfs with a major European football nation. If they were that big a deal why weren’t the grounds full. Furthermore Melbourne is really the exception to the rule. You tell people in the uk about Harry Kewell and they laugh. Tim Cahill not so much but he isn’t the rock star we all think he is. RU still holds the record crowd for Australia and will continue too for a long time.
Let’s face it. They are the bandwagon side. People are happy to know about them during the WC but the rest of the time interest drops. How many people do you really see wearing socceroos shirts on the street? I can tell you it is practically zero in Sydney.
Matt said | February 7th 2010 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
I think it probably is the most popular and is very much in vogue. It is helped by the fact that the wallabies have been struggling for form and to entertain in a period of significant change. People in Sydney are very fickle and no sport seems to stay trendy for too long. In my life time basketball, rugby, AFL and football have all had a go at being the vogue side.I have watched socceroos play live and must say I thought the crowd was more interesting than the game which was ok. I think the only thing I really agree with these boys is that hype for this WC is tiny compared to the last where I live in Sydney. Last time there was a real buzz about the place and great expectation. It seems to be more isolated tithe diehards this time but I’m sure they’ll enjoy it in either case. Good luck to them in any case.
Punter said | February 7th 2010 @ 7:03am | Report comment
I can assure you that the likes of Samoa, Fiji & Tonga are not exactly world sporting powers.
Even Australia’s main rivals New Zealand (pop 3 milllion) or Sth Africa, though a couple of tiers above the pacific island teams are not regarded as world super powers in team sports.
Just because we in Australia do not have a tradition against some of the Asian teams does not demean the effort to beat the teams we did to qualify.
Lordrahrah said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:16am | Report comment
no i just think their golden period has come and gone. the novelty of a world cup has worn off and we expect results now.
tis all
elbusto said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
I went to the trial between the Tahs and Brumbies last Thursday and saw absolutely nothing that would indicate that Aussie Rugby will be any better this year, that Rugby will be any better to watch or that the Refs understand that people pay money to watch it.
There were 8 scrum penalties. It will take a lot to get me to watch another game this year. This game reminded just how terrible last year was.
kick,clap,kick said | February 6th 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
To a RL fan ..this is what makes RU unwatchable.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un…0203-ndgm.html
…How can the Tri Nations promote itself as being attractive to spectators when last year there were between 62 to 89 stoppages a game. An average of 75 stoppages per match, where penalties rather than tries dominated, is not healthy. This includes collapsed scrums that chewed up 12 to 25 per cent of match time…
If you are paying money to watch”Running Rugby” then i think you are entitled to ask for a refund.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 6th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
The flaw in GG’s argument as I see it is that to increase the value of the try will simply add to the number of penalties as teams deny a try being scored by illegal means. Secondly, the idea of stopping & restarting the clock would have Rugby supporters camping out, such is the amount & length of stoppages.
Better I think is to come down hard on serial offenders with a send off. That way their team mates & the coaches will get the message. Delays need to be looked at closely but it seems to me that teams would soon speed up with scrum feeds, lineout throws, etc if the ref gave the pill to the other team for delays.
Bay35Pablo said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
We could have a short arm penalty rather than a scrum to speed the game up! We could trial it via a system called the ELVs to ….. Oh.
Working Class Rugger said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
I want a return of the short arm penalties for any other than professional fouls. Add with the change of interpretation regarding the rucks the game would drastically speed up.
PastHisBest said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Hang on…there are 4-6 stoppages every 90 seconds in league!
elbusto said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
but they do not last for two minutes like the setting of a scrum these days
Realist said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
You’re comparing apples with oranges. The play-the-ball system in rugby league only eats up a small fraction of game time. The ruck and maul system, line outs and scrummaging system in rugby union eat up a a fair bit of game time.
Siva Samoa said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
rucks and mauls aren’t stoppages. there are only 14 minutes in play for nfl games and i don’t see anyone complainning.
Norm said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
umm…outside USA how much NFL is played around the world?
Justin said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Ironic you are asking that question isnt it Norm? Think about it
rugbyfuture said | February 6th 2010 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
hahaha i like justin’s style
Norm said | February 7th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Does Justin have style?
rugbyfuture said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
well he’s able to point out flaws in your argument with some flair so yes.
Justin said | February 7th 2010 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
I prefer substance over style Norm
Have you figured it out yet?
Norm said | February 7th 2010 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Substance over style Justin? You’d never know that from your posts.
Justin said | February 7th 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Tic, tic, tic Norm
Realist said | February 6th 2010 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
“rucks and mauls aren’t stoppages.” — Siva Samoa
Tell that to the poor spectators who see nothing other than a bunch of fat blokes standing over one another….
“there are only 14 minutes in play for nfl games and i don’t see anyone complainning.” — Siva Samoa
Maybe that’s because the American football involves exciting action when the ball is in play.
This is how I explain rugby league and rugby union to Americans:
Rugby league involves all of the action that is seen in American football, but is a far faster game beause it has far less stoppages. Rugby union has has all of the stoppages that are seen in American football, but lacks action.
The Americans tell me they won’t bother watching a game of rugby union!
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 12:04am | Report comment
is really funny when a rugby league fan try to make rugby league look really really big by saying its similar to american football. i love it when you guys all of a sudden becomes american football, soccer and afl fans to try and win one over rugby because league alone won’t give you the edge you need.
you want to see players standing doing nothing then i suggest you watch the rest of the forward pack when one of the players take up the ball. the rest are standing around waiting for their turn.
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 12:07am | Report comment
the americans would tell you what the majority of new zealanders, english, irish, french, south africans, pacific islands, welsh, scottish, argentinians and italians would say. rugby league is a boring game to play and watch and thats why is the less popular of the two codes.
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 2:27am | Report comment
“the americans would tell you what the majority of new zealanders, english, irish, french, south africans, pacific islands, welsh, scottish, argentinians and italians would say. rugby league is a boring game to play and watch and thats why is the less popular of the two codes.” — Siva Samoa
Utter nonsense.
The American public’s response to Spike TV’s coverage of the NRL Final series suggests the Americans believe rugby league is an exciting sport to watch on television.
Americans involved in rugby union said rugby league is the more exciting code of rugby to watch, thus the reason they believe it’s better equipped than rugby union to bring “rugby” into the mainstream of American culture.
The New Zealand All-Blacks rugby union coach and the QRU CEO reckon rugby union is a boring game to watch! If they reckon it’s boring as hell then there’s a good chance that rugby union is less exciting than rugby league!
Seriously Siva Samoa, you need to wake up and stop living in a fantasy world. You know absolutely nothing about the history of the two rugby codes.
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 2:31am | Report comment
The ELV’s wouldn’t have been introduced by SANZAR if rugby union was more exciting than rugby league. The purpose behind the ELV’s was to make rugby union a more free-flowing game like rugby league.
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 11:52am | Report comment
just like when rugby league changed its rules for a better and faster game. most sports changed their rules and don’t tell me rugby league hasn’t.
allblackfan said | February 7th 2010 @ 12:46am | Report comment
Realist, rucks and mauls are part of the game of RU! Don’t like it? Gee, that must be why you are an RL man, then!
Spectators at a RU game are there to see rucks, mauls, scrums, lineouts — and running. They appreciate the power aspect of the game (which RL does NOT have) as much as the running-try-scoring aspect.
SOME of the stoppages in RU are safety related (ie scrum restarts) — if RL fans want to see contested scrums again then they better get used to seeing the game slowing down.
I explains the two rugby codes to Americans like this:
American football is a spinoff from rugby, just like like rugby league (once I explain THAT game to them) is also a spinoff from rugby.
Then I tell them to go watch Invictus if they’re still not sure what rugby is!
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 2:43am | Report comment
“Spectators at a RU game are there to see rucks, mauls, scrums, lineouts — and running. They appreciate the power aspect of the game (which RL does NOT have) as much as the running-try-scoring aspect.” — allblackfan
Utter crap. There’s no way a spectator can see inside the scrums, rucks and mauls. All the spectator sees is a bunch of people standing alongside one another. Even the poor officials have difficulty understanding what happens in these facets of the game. It’s why you often hear the commmentators saying, “what was that penalty given for?”
“if RL fans want to see contested scrums again then they better get used to seeing the game slowing down.” — allblackfan
Rugby union scrums might involve a lot of touching and crouching, but they’re not contested. Most of the time the the ball is fed in a way that prevents the opposing team’s hooker from making a play at ball. I’ve seen more rugby league scrums go ‘against the head’. The only time I saw a rugby union scrum go ‘against the head’ was when the British Lions played against the WA Swans in 2001, and that was because it involved a team of professionals playing against a bunch of amateurs who were bulldozed backwards at the speed of lightning.
“American football is a spinoff from rugby, just like like rugby league (once I explain THAT game to them) is also a spinoff from rugby.” — allblackfan
American football’s is a spin-off of Canadian football.
“Then I tell them to go watch Invictus if they’re still not sure what rugby is!” allblackfan
Good for you!
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:26am | Report comment
poor realist. who has the most players in america rugby or league ? be a good man kurt angle. you need to get out more. more people on this planet finds rugby more exciting to watch than rugby league.
england vs wales crowd 80.000
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
“poor realist. who has the most players in america rugby or league ?” — Siva Samoa
Which sport has been around for 180+ years, and which one has been around since 1998?
“be a good man kurt angle. you need to get out more.” — Siva Samoa
Considering you’ve trolled a whole heap of rugby league forums over the years — that’s what I’ve heard from other people — I’d say you’re the one who needs to “get out more”.
“more people on this planet finds rugby more exciting to watch than rugby league.” — Siva Samoa
More people know about rugby union’s existence. That’s all.
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
“Which sport has been around for 180+ years, and which one has been around since 1998?”
I mean which one has been in America for 180+ years and, which one has been there since 1998?
ohtani's jacket said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:24am | Report comment
Rugby is closer to NFL than league.
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 2:47am | Report comment
“Rugby is closer to NFL than league.” — ohtani’s jacket
The 4-down system in American football resembles the 6-tackle rule in rugby league.
The field markings in American football are very similar to a rugby league field.
The play-the-ball rule in rugby league is similar to the ’srimmage’ rule in American football.
American football reduced its total amount of on-field players, as did rugby league.
ohtani's jacket said | February 7th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
When you gain 10 yards, you get first down — sustained possession ala rugby and the line of scrimmage is closer to a rugby set piece than league’s play of the ball.
Field markings and number of players? Crucial.
If the NFL was anything remotely closer to league, you’d have a bunch of Aussie league fans claiming it as a second sport or something.
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
thats next chapter in the rugby league history. nfl and touch was born from rugby league . won’t be long before we see that on the rugby league bible RL1908.com.
Nick said | February 7th 2010 @ 2:26am | Report comment
Do you know every single american Realist? i know many that love rugby…
“Tell that to the poor spectators who see nothing other than a bunch of fat blokes standing over one another” – Fat, Fat??? please do explain, would love to hear that, beast mtawarira fat? david pocock fat? pierre spies the strongest rugby player in both codes fat? please realist wake up there is a whole world out there other than the stuff you read on leagueunlimited and what you daydream. rugby is a profesional game, like league. Fowards in rugby have to scrum, ruck, lift in lineouts and play a whole 80 min of rugby.
Working Class Rugger said | February 7th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Nick
“Tell that to the poor spectators who see nothing other than a bunch of fat blokes standing over one another” – Fat, Fat???
Realist obviously has never seen the NFL or College Football which pack out 60-70,000 seater Stadium on a weekly basis and he calls Rugby players fat. Sadly Realist is yet another one dimensional RL fan. Buys into all the BS.
As for the Spike TV numbers. They topped out at 270,000. That’s less than 0.15% of the potential TV audience. Most shows get cancelled if they get that low a figure.
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
the usa leg of the irb sevens in 2009 shown on espn rated better than nrl on spike tv.
Nashi said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Hey did anyone notice the little 5 second promo on One HD?
Its a football being drop kicked, and not just any football, its a Gilbert!
Looks like we may see some S14 on FTA after all……..
Realist said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Perhaps it is meant to reflect on OneHD’s coverage of the Wallabies’ Spring Tour of the British Isles?
Nashi said | February 6th 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Seems strange to put the add on last night then. The Spring tour was some months ago or about 9 months into the future.
It looked more like a teaser, the socks were white I think, so they didn’t look like they belonged to any team.
Justin said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
Does anyone have figures on Union Tests for FTA and Fox? Rugby is in the unusual position of having Test on both FTA and PTV at the same time. Its easy to quote FTA figures but how many are watching the same match on PTV?
Midfielder said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Maybe I am uninformed so sorry to the RU folk if I am… However I understand in board terms the AFL plans to expand their game over the next ten or so years… the same with RL … Football I am totally aware of the various plans moving forward…
RU aside from the new S14 to S15 I am unaware of any plans by the ARU to fix or even attempt to fix the issues raised by Sheek whick I will repeat..”". – low player participation levels; low professional base; nil national comp structure, dysfunctional club premier rugby structure, etc.”"”"
So a new team and getting refs to help play flow more … how does this help the bottom rung…
My point is I can see merit in what all the codes are doing … essentially they are all chasing the bottom rung which the top rung needs to move forward… But cannot see what RU is doing to develop their bottom rung… i.e. park sides…
Justin said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:56am | Report comment
I thought RL had decided against expansion fort the moment?
Midfielder said | February 7th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment
They have but they are building academies re marketing their brands…setting up a an independent board to run RL… and investing heaps in their park sides..
rugbyfuture said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I’d agree with you to a large extent, however, the ARU are trying to avoid losses and push their strengths currently in order to reinforce what they have currently, to build from that, the other three codes have strengths in internal promotion of the games, playing numbers and money, the ARU has strength at an international level. at a point where this area is promoting well, then the ARU will be able to build at grassroots, from now til then, it will depend on charitable people to build the game.
allblackfan said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Midfielder, I can’t think of anyone in Aussie RU circles who’d disagree with your criticism of what the ARU is doing.
For a code that’s struggling, the last thing Aussie RU needs is a bunch of short-sighted, self-serving administrators who believe they are bigger than the game!
I’d say it’s time to clean house (okay maybe keep JON but not because I like him) and start anew. After all, that’s what the ARU is wanting from its players so what’s good for the goose is … et al
Siva Samoa said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:35am | Report comment
midfield, now do one for rugby league, afl and rugby union in other countries and tell us who has plans and are moving on ?
allblackfan said | February 7th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Realist, you really don’t like RU do you? That is the only explanation I can think of for that bunch of bs you offered.
1. Listen to the home crowd during a rugby test every time their side puts on a rolling maul or wins a tighthead. They love it! I love it! I don’t understand everything that goes on in a maul or a ruck but then I’m not playing the game either!!
2. You really don’t understand the RU scrum at all, do you? Crooked (or second-row) feeds is something you see in league scrums (probably because their so-called frontrowers are fast asleep!). You’ve seen the crouching and touching in RU scrums but it’s obvious you didn’t see, or understand, what comes NEXT. The reason the opposition hooker can’t strike at the ball in a RU scrum is that he CAN’T — the opposing force bearing down on him prevents him from even lifting a leg to strike at the ball. Occasionally, there is a tighthead because the defensive pack in a scrum overpowers the attacking side through superior power or superior technique.
3. Thank you!
Realist said | February 7th 2010 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Considering I played as a loosehead prop, a tighthead prop and a hooker for a rugby union club when I was an adolescent, I’d say I’m the more qualified party to speak about rugby union scrums.
rugbyfuture said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
id say you probably weren’t very good and have a spite against a game which has held onto one of the best parts of the game
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
“d say you probably weren’t very good and have a spite against a game which has held onto one of the best parts of the game” — rugbyfuture
Wrong.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
but u do have a spite against the game that has held onto one of the foundations of the creation of the game.
and whether you encounter stuck up people on the web (and i admit i have been a bit toffy sumtime) you should atleast base it on its merits, i can understand your point of view, but being a hero of the working class on the net is just as bad as being an upper class dandy. it’s the whole thing with the only way to defeat the things you hate is to become it.
PastHisBest said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
I find that very hard to believe considering you said this…
“…involve a lot of touching and crouching, but they’re not contested.”
OK, I take that back…I’m calling you a liar.
Working Class Rugger said | February 7th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Realist
And you never won a tight head. That’s not necessarily a reflection of the scrum in Rugby, its more a reflection of your abilities and technique as a Prop. For the record I won more than my fair share of tight heads.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
“Realist
And you never won a tight head. That’s not necessarily a reflection of the scrum in Rugby, its more a reflection of your abilities and technique as a Prop. For the record I won more than my fair share of tight heads.” Working Class Rugger
Actually I did win a tighthead or two, but that was at junior level — I quit soon afterwards due to health-related reasons.
The scrums at junior level are far different to the ones in the international game. Can you name and date the last 2 or 3 times you’ve seen a tighthead in an Test match between two Tier-1 nations? Of course you can’t.
Working Class Rugger said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Realist
The Wallabies actually won quite a few tight heads last seasons. As did the AB’s, French and Italians. There not as rare as you would like to portray. In fact they happen every game.
Working Class Rugger said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
How long ago did you finsih playing. Under junior rules either pack can only advance 1.5 metres. Making a tight head far more difficult and relying heavily on the skill of the Hooker and his strike in the scrum. If the ball is feed into the second row then how is that possible?
Bay35Pablo said | February 7th 2010 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
I read this during the week, and tried to post from work which failed (as happens).
My first response was as others have said. Rugby was No2? When? How measured? Even as a rugby fan I wouldn’t agree with that.
Rugby is going through a trough, which I believe it is coming out of. Just like league has gone through troughs of its own (Super League, the “blight” of grapple tackles, defence dominating attack). Rugby is a more complex game (thus tweaks can have weird effects) with more stakeholders (read IRB and many countires meaning changes are harder to agree). So tweaking the rules to improve the game isn’t as easy as league or union.
I think the derbies and Rebels in the S15, and any FTA, in 2011 on will give a bit of a shot in the arm.
Some forewarned doom for league during Super League, but they pulled out of it. Similarly for union. It’ll recover in this country, and it’s doing OK outside it (even with NZ’s current malaise).
Midfielder said | February 8th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Siva
I have little idea what the AFL & NRL are doing overseas… however this thread is about Australia and Australian Rugby…
On the AFL page there is a poster called Micheal C who writes constantly on AFL overseas expansion if you want to know… on RL I have no idea.
But if you honestly believe that the ARU is on top of things and doing a good job I will respect your call because as I said in my opening sentence I am only going by my own limited obversations pertaining to developing RU at park level… My belief is without a strong park land presence a sports future could be in some trouble … I use Tennis as my best example to highlight my point.
But back to my overall point and one Sheek has made many times and I think the writer of this thread thinks as well… can RU in Australia rely on its international / pay TV broadcast to develop its park land sides … and if not can the existing park sides combined with the Privatr Schools support RU in Australia 20 years from now…
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
the private schools and current sides can yes. the ARU needs to make sure to stop the leaks into the NRL and rugby league though. on the international top down thing no, but something big will happen soon, im sure of it. possibly 2011-2012. The olympic progress again has been overlooked here, no matter what others say, it is still governed by the ARU and has the same rules bar a few, and will help fund the ARU.
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
RF – it will be hard for RU to retain its talent if the NRL salary cap is expected to be raised to $6m.
ARU’s new share of the s15s tv deal is about $150m over 5 year. NRL’s existing tv contract is circa $550m over 5 years and it is undervalued!
RU faces a real risk of being left behind if your prediction about junior development is not correct.
Siva Samoa said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
you won’t find many top rugby union players switch to rugby league now or the future. the fact is that they could get more money playing rugby for toulon, ulster, saracens, ospreys, paris and other rugby union clubs in france, uk, ireland and japan.
they could either stay in rugby and hope to get selelcted for the wallabies or make the big money switch rugby union in europe.
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
not that many elite rugby players go to RL since rugby became professional, so that was never going to be an issue. but we could soon see the big name NRL players on $1m+ club contracts (excluding rep payments and endorsements), while rugby may not be in the same position.
In addition, there are less teams to play for, no credible pathway from club rugby to super rugby and less financial resources available for grass roots development. Even you must admit that rugby in Australia is far from perfect and the new tv deal doesnt really seem to suggest that these problems will be overcome in the next 5-10 years.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | February 9th 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
$550 vs $150 million sounds like a big difference….until you divide it by the number of teams in each comp
NRL $34.375 million per team ARU Super 15 $30 million per team….and the NRL plays a lot more rounds giving tv more ad revenue…..its no wonder they are getting more in round figures.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
i’d agree with you there Jay, although if the ARU gets a domestic comp run successfully it might help, and the raising of the salary cap is very dependant on if the independant commission lives up to the promises and is able to gain better deals. we may well see Rugby gaining something along the way. there is also more action going in from the spectators and rugby lovers, so this may help. you’re right though, it will become very tight
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
rugbyfuture,
What sort of fantasy world do you live in?
Seriously mate, the following comment does not represent reality.
“if the ARU gets a domestic comp run successfully it might help”
Haven’t you learned anything from the ARC disaster?
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
that the ARU have been able to run a domestic comp with a 5 mil loss and 8 mil loss over two years and already have a 15 mil reserve in their bank accounts, as well as the olympic decision at hand with a luanch paired with sevens rugby.
I Live in The world for that matter (not just australia)
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
and also that they have a huge reservoir of suggestions from the public over a new competition (marketing research) and feedback on the first instance of the competition meaning it enables a more effecient, productive and better developed competition and clubs than before.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
“and also that they have a huge reservoir of suggestions from the public over a new competition (marketing research) and feedback on the first instance of the competition meaning it enables a more effecient, productive and better developed competition and clubs than before.” — rugbyfuture
I recall Ewen MacKenzie (sp?) saying the ARC was implemented after the persons in power conducted careful research of other sporting leagues. His comment was made on a rugby-based program on Fox Sports round a year or so before the ARC was launched. The research didn’t have the desired outcome for the ARC, did it?
“that the ARU have been able to run a domestic comp with a 5 mil loss and 8 mil loss over two years and already have a 15 mil reserve in their bank accounts, as well as the olympic decision at hand with a luanch paired with sevens rugby.” — rugbyfuture
The bulk of the ARU’s reserves is derived from the Bledisloe Cup match they held in Hong Kong.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
but didnt ask much of the actual sporting public and approached it at a bad time.
its of no effect, it means theres more than three years worth of cash to help get a new comp up and running and the fact that JON (however criticised he may be) has built this up with an initially huge loss (not sure but i recall it was alot more than 15 mil) is a point to be recognised.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
“but didnt ask much of the actual sporting public and approached it at a bad time.
its of no effect, it means theres more than three years worth of cash to help get a new comp up and running and the fact that JON (however criticised he may be) has built this up with an initially huge loss (not sure but i recall it was alot more than 15 mil) is a point to be recognised.” — rugbyfuture
The ARU will need more than $15 million if it wants to set up a quality third-tier competition. The ARU are on the verge of losing a few of their major sponsors.
Your mate, Mr O’Neill, made a short-term profit by taking the Bledisloe Cup to Hong Kong, but it’s not a long-term solution.
Meanwhile, the NRL’s next television deal will dwarf anything the ARU can hope of attaining. The added funds from the next NRL TV deal will help rugby league develop itself at the grassroots level. The gap between rugby league and rugby union in Australia will get wider because the latter won’t have the funds to keep up.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
first off realist, you don’t need to quote everything it doesn’t reinforce your point at all, thats what the reply button is for.
15 million is plenty to set up anything like this and the set up isn’t just covered by the ARU itself its also covered through sponsorships, and a possible private equity model.
the verge of losing a couple of their major sponsors isn’t true yet and is just insidious rumours. Bunderberg and Vodafone MAY drop out but it isn’t confirmed and another company would step in. (macquarie bank sponsors canada)
Siva Samoa said | February 8th 2010 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
and the gap between the irb and the rlif is getting bigger and bigger. the aru has enough money to cover the super 15 and grssroots and the wallabies can very much cover themselves with money from test matches, sponsors and share of the gates on spring tours.
when vodafone pull out sponsoring the wallabies telstra and qantas came in with a bigger sponsorship deal.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
“15 million is plenty to set up anything like this and the set up isn’t just covered by the ARU itself its also covered through sponsorships, and a possible private equity model.” — rugbyfuture
The ARU will probably need to take a huge paycut from its sponsors if it wishes to retain them. No one in their right mind would pay top dollar for a sport that’ll offer them little value. Rugby union is neither popular enough nor exposed enough in Australia to warrant top dollar sponsorship.
Oh and guess what, there’s even more bad news for your sport. One of the bosses from Channel Seven, David Leckie, said the networks are going to avoid sports like rugby union, soccer and cricket because their focus will be on securing the right to broadcast rugby league and Australian rules football!
“Cricket, rugby and soccer will all be sidelined by these deals [NRL and AFL television deals],” Leckie said. “Whoever gets the AFL deal will pay too much. Whoever gets the league rights will pay too much.
“It will leave nothing for the rest of them.” David Leckie, Herald Sun, Dinner with a $2 million bill
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
well ,realist, since you won’t try and take an impartial view on this, im going to say, we’ll have to see over the next decade, because there are lots of hopes for either codes and lots of problens for either code. at the same time their is more than 2 tv stations BTW and A pay tv provider who have unlimited funds with what seems to be new found courage. I never said anything about free to air here. and as i’ve said before, the fortunate thing for Rugby, is that business is behind it.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
There are only three commercial FTA networks in Australia and, they’ll be competing with one another for the right to broadcast the AFL and NRL. The NRL’s product is going to be split into three or so packages and, the RLIF will control negotiate the next television broadcast deal for all Test matches that are held in Australia. This means all three networks could end up investing in rugby league. The next AFL television deal will probably attract just as much money (possibly more) and just as much programming space from a couple of the aforementioned networks. This means the three networks will neither have the room nor the money to accommodate rugby union in a large way.
This will leave the ARU well behind rugby league and Australian rules football because it will not be in a position to command a hefty sum from its next terrestrial FTA television deal and, will have less opportunity to promote their product on television.
The ARU’s ability to compete with the other codes will rely heavily upon the amount of money they can command from their sponsors. The Super rugby clubs might struggle to attain strong investments from their sponsors if their matches aren’t broadcast on FTA television. A sponsor or two from Super Rugby might jump ship to the AFL and NRL because doing so will allow their product to gain more exposure, thus meaning they’ll be getting more bang for their buck. The Wallabies might struggle to attain strong sponsorship deals if their matches continue to rate poorly on Seven and aren’t televised at a prime time viewing hour in the southern states.
News Corp aren’t going to throw much money behind the ARU’s new pay television deal. The information I’ve come across in the media suggests the ARU will only earn $130 million dollars over 5 years from the aforementioned deal. The NRL’s next deal is rumoured to be worth $200 million per year.
I predict the ARU will fall further behind the NRL and AFL, thus leading to Australian rules football and rugby league increasing their stranglehold over rugby union.
rugbyfuture said | February 9th 2010 @ 1:41am | Report comment
there is a key word which you repeat over and over again that is…
MIGHT
Three TV networks – two sports (hmmm?) money they raise for the bids may be recapitalised, notice that the article you refer to does not talk about channel ten executives whatsoever, because they can’t provide enough money to gain the rights to the other codes. The split of the League rights (or AFL) may mean there is space left on the networks for other sports at other times. However ten have a well-deserved pedigree in expansion sports and developing the best broadcast systems for these sports. The ARU on the other hand only has the international games being broadcast and is increasingly diversifying its selection of broadcast partners. There is also the fact that the IRB have enough capital to reinforce any unions which might be in trouble if the business case is put forward, unlike the other sports on record. The super Rugby teams Generate their sponsors through strong business links, and as you and norm put it, have strong links with the establishment (them being big business) and already attract sponsors without free to air (you forgot to think about this point). Many sponsors also want to gain international coverage rather than local substance (thus meaning they’ll gain more bang for their buck). The Wallabies matches will regain their spots in the viewing numbers with a strong competitive push on the field and off field positivity about the game again. The pay tv deal that news corp are putting forward for the ARU may not be much but still consists of enough to cover expenses and is greater than the previous deal. It matters to refer to the other deals yes, but still what matters more is the previous deal.
Nostradamus predicted the end of the world by the millennium, it doesn’t mean he was right, but he was more qualified to predict about such things than you.
Realist said | February 9th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
“Three TV networks – two sports (hmmm?)” — rugbyfuture
The three commercial FTA networks currently cover the NRL and AFL, don’t they? The next rugby league television deal will probably be shared between two or three commercial FTA networks because it’s going to be sold in four separate packages: NRL Premiership, NRL Finals; SOO, and; Test matches. All three commercial FTA networks have expressed their interest to bid for one or more of the aforementioned rugby league television packages.
“The super Rugby teams Generate their sponsors through strong business links, and as you and norm put it, have strong links with the establishment (them being big business) and already attract sponsors without free to air (you forgot to think about this point).” — rugbyfuture
What makes you think the aforementioned businesses will continue to invest in an inferior product? The businesses might have a soft spot for rugby union as they’re part of the old boys’ network, but even they’ll turn their backs on it when they can no longer afford to prop it up — especially with the global financial crisis affecting so many of them.
“Many sponsors also want to gain international coverage rather than local substance (thus meaning they’ll gain more bang for their buck).” — rugbyfuture
Which is why they’ll turn their backs on the Wallabies and sponsor the Socceroos and, to a lesser extent, Cricket Australia.
“The Wallabies matches will regain their spots in the viewing numbers with a strong competitive push on the field and off field positivity about the game again.” — rugbyfuture
Speculation.
“Nostradamus predicted the end of the world by the millennium, it doesn’t mean he was right, but he was more qualified to predict about such things than you.” — rugbyfuture
LOL
You don’t know much about Nostradamus’s method, do you?
rugbyfuture said | February 9th 2010 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
First off, regarding the FTA networks, if it’s sold in the different packages that’s fine, means there will either be one or two networks who don’t get the deals and so will look for other things, or that the networks who own the rights to the separate products will have gaps in their schedules to fill in (I don’t care if Rugby is a filler for this). I’m unsure of any Reports of Ten saying they’ll bid for the RL deals.
Obviously you’re the one here speculating (see I can use this word too) that Rugby Union is perceived as an inferior product by these companies, they do have a soft spot for this product, which means that perceptions are skewed. Most companies willing to sponsor the teams are based within Australia (or are full blown subsidiaries) this means that the American and European fiscal systems only affect them through the Australian System, which if you didn’t pay attention to media beat ups wasn’t much of a recession at all. In fact, these companies have been able to generate growth where the Australian system has allowed them to stay partially away from any economic demise (as much of Australian business has) and are currently raising enough capital to buy out undervalued assets overseas.
Most companies also have increasing assets in the old English empire as you like to call it and so this means that the wallabies are a great option for them. You also don’t mention that your article refers to the demise of both soccer and cricket as well.
Yes, speculation, the same as most of your ideas.
And no, I don’t pay much attention to mysticism and don’t give much time to the research of such things (haven’t been alive for that long to pay attention to it either.)
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
This might sound silly – but why doesnt the ARU lobby SANZAR to set-up a Toyota Cup style s.15’s comp.. where each s 15’s team has a second string squad that plays against the other second sting teams as a curtain raiser to the actual super 15s game?
keep the same draw for the regular season, so travelling and organising stadiums will be easier and play the finals in the same venues as the s15s top teams.
the costs could be partially brone by selling these earlier games to pay tv.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
NZ and SA already have their domestic comps, which beneath them have academy and junior sides. The Tahs, Brumbies, Reds, Force and soon the Rebels all have academy sides (junior Tahs) but they’re quite inneffective as lots of the boys could find better and safer careers in finance, law and other university proffesions, although i feel this is changing. the junior teams still have good players coming through but overall its the retention of proffesionals from school through to super 15 which is the problem (im not completely sure so any other ruggers feel free to correct me)
Jay said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
we’ve got the shute shield, even though it may be a curry cup, so there is the equivilant. but taking the best shute player and players on the fringe selection of the s.15s in the same comp, playing in the same calander as super rugby may have some merit.
about your finance/law/profession statement – cant argue with that. i gave up on a promising cricket career to work in finance.. safer route baring the gfc.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
id say the shute shield is more equivalent to whatever may be a johannesburg local comp or something. the south africans actually have the national team, going down to the super rugby comp then currie cup, vodacom and varsity cups, local comps and amateur so they have what we would consider four or five tiers of rugby over our two then dropping to the fourth which acts as a third.
Michael C said | February 8th 2010 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
‘constantly’….that’s a bit strong……let me check……
oh, no, okay,…….you’re right,…..’constantly’ about sums it up.
btw – a big well done to New Orleans for their 31-17 win in the Superbowl.
ON topic – - Aust Bureau of STats national survey results pubished last October (2009)
for organised sports (outside of school) participation for kids aged 5-14:
boys –
Rugby Union 3.8%
RL 7.0%
Aust Football 16%
Soccer (outdoor) 19.9%
somewhere down the line – - – you just gotta suggest that the game is 4th by some way and really, really struggling to be relevant enough to enough of Australia to justify anything. And that the Vic/Melb Rebels is a bit of a last roll of the dice (hoping for the sports minded folk of Melbourne to ‘rescue’ the code).
btw – curious what the above numbers would be when ‘in school’ is retained. However, it I gather was outside of school hours – so, the sport could be school comps played on weekends – - – just not done as part of a PE class.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
I’m actually quite surprised by those numbers, they’re better than what many would expect i think, close to 4% of a market is still quite strong, i would like to know what the non participation of any rate thing is. it means that there are also hopes to gain on rugby league with only a 7% share, although this is still a large number it certainly isn’t unattainable.
Realist said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
“Between April 2003 and April 2006, the sport participation rate for boys remained just under 69% while the rate for girls rose from 54% to 58%. However, the participation rate for boys playing Rugby League increased from 5.6% to 7.9%, while Outdoor soccer decreased from 22% to 20%.”
…
Boys’ participation rate in sport in 2006 (Top Ten):
Soccer (outdoor) 19.6%
Swimming 16.5%
Australian rules football 13.8%
Cricket (outdoor) 10.1%
Tennis 8.0%
Rugby league 7.9%
Basketball 7.4%
Martial Arts 6.1%
Athletics/track and field 2.6%
Hockey 1.7%
Australian Bureau of Statistics 4156.0 – Sports and Physical Recreation: A Statistical Overview, Australia, 2009. Chapter 3: Sports and Physical Recreation, CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS AND PHYSICAL RECREATION
—–
Rugby union wasn’t mentioned!
Rugby league’s participation rate and player base has increased since 2006.
Siva Samoa said | February 8th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
rugby at grassroot level in queensland is on an all time high. the same in western australia because of the force’s entry into super rugby and im sure the same will happen to victoria. i don’t know about nsw but im sure their participations are also up as well.
sheek said | February 8th 2010 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Siva Samoa,
Some facts would be useful here. An “all time high” for Qld might still mean very low compared to other sports. Let’s keep things in perspective. At the end of the day, it’s still all relative to other sports.
I’m a rugby union lover, but I won’t buy any fancy, rubbery figures. Whichever way you play with the stats – rugby union is 4th among the footy codes, & well down the list for general sports.
The first step forward for rugby union, is to acknowledge that it sucks in this country. One reason why I believe rugby union doesn’t move forward is that too many people remain happy with the game’s mediocrity, in all its forms.
The second step is to decide how we’re going to be different to attract players & fans to our game. The third step is then to develop a strategy to go out & win those players & fans.
westy said | February 8th 2010 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
I think I will seek permission before I submit an article on their behalf but for anyone interested NSWRU and ARU continue their efforts commenced in 2007 to send state schools from Western Sydney to represent Australian schools inthe Sanix rugby tounament. In 2007 it was Westfields High School in 2009 Prarievale High school and in 2010 it will be Hills Sport high school from Seven Hills. The school can be contacted on 02 96227300 and the coordinator’s mobile is 0425 288481.
I understand the school is running a golf fundraising day at Fox Hills Golf Clubon Friday 26 th February and is looking for firms to sponsor holes ( $250 put the firm name on the hole and gives them two tickets to play. Otherwise all welcome at $75 per head breakfast and buffet lunch included and a guest speaker provided gratis by NSWRU. They also seek any memorabilia or items for raffles or auctions.
This is grassroots rugby in the west . I am going and I am a terrible golfer. A call to any in western or greater Sydney who supprt the growth of rugby.
Rugby is not on the canvas it just needs to be aware of its problems but also have the confidence to affirm the good it is doing.
Get behind the good news with real support.
rugbyfuture said | February 8th 2010 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
i hope cumberland HS gets a go one day
King of the Gorganites said | February 9th 2010 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
realist- here is some reality for you.
The sexi nations over the weekend had the following crowds:
Dublin – 82K
London- 82k
Edinburgh – 65K
How did the RL international program go over the weekend?
Realist said | February 11th 2010 @ 2:10am | Report comment
Why are you citing figures about British sport on an Australian website? Could it be that you know rugby union is dying in Australia? If you don’t think it’s dying then look at the marketability of your sport, then compare it with rugby league.
The ARU’s next SANZAR TV deal is only worth $140 million over 5 years
The current NRL TV deal is worth more than $100 million per year and, the next NRL TV deal is estimated to be worth more than $200 million per year.
I know which code I’d rather be working for!
David Leckie’s comments in the Herald Sun’s Dinner with a $2 million bill. says everything we need to know about rugby union’s miserable position in the Australian sports market.
“Cricket, rugby and soccer will all be sidelined by these deals,” Leckie said. “Whoever gets the AFL deal will pay too much. Whoever gets the league rights will pay too much.
“It will leave nothing for the rest of them.”
Look at the following comments from the same article:
“A seven spokesman added: ‘It wasn’t just a catch-up dinner with David Gallop – we put our cards on the table for rugby league rights.
‘We want them bad.
‘Everyone knows how much David Leckie loves rugby league.’”
Great news, isn’t Gorganite?
I’m lovin’ every minute of it!
SA said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:10am | Report comment
Give it up Realist who really cares about rugby league? its a waterd down version of the real game lets compare rugby league in Aus vs Rugby in South Africa? do rugby league schools pull crowds over 10 000, do university’s pull over 20 000 for games??? is their an u19 and u21 rugby league comp? do rugby league teams get 40 000 people to their pre season games? rugby league is a small insignificant sport who cares if league is big in Aus.
MyGeneration said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
“who cares if league is big in Aus” – um, Australians, you know, the subject of this thread.
Rusty said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
The point he is making is that, for some reason any talk about the future of rugby turns in Australia inevitably degenerates into another tedious who has the biggest dick contest between league and union. Which I suppose is fine, when its a comparison at a local level. As I, like SA dont care who is bigger or better. Global comparisons however are different and a joke – there is no point to it. Put simply, locally the Wallabies would be behind the Kangaroos as a brand. Internationally the Kangaroos are an animal found in the outback and Rolo ads.
Realist said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
“Give it up Realist who really cares about rugby league?” SA
Australians and Papua New Guineans care about it!
“its a waterd down version of the real game” SA
Rugby league is an improved version of rugby union. The RFL reduced the number of players from 15 to 13, discarded lineouts and replaced the ruck and maul system with the play-the-ball system because it was smart enough to realise that doing so made the game more marketable. The rule changes in rugby league allowed its players to develop superior ball skills, better tackling techniques and a greater capacity to look 3 or 4 passages of play ahead of the game — rugby union players are uncreative and unskilled because they focus the bulk of their time on securing possession at the breakdown, thus stifling their ability to be creative and expansive. It’s why rugby league is a successful television product while rugby union isn’t and, why rugby league players tend to be better athletes — most of the forwards in rugby union are just overweight toffs who have the hand-eye coordination of a drunken 3-year-old kid!
“lets compare rugby league in Aus vs Rugby in South Africa? do rugby league schools pull crowds over 10 000, do university’s pull over 20 000 for games???” SA
Considering the bulk of South Africa’s Stupid 14 teams draw pitiful crowds to their matches, I think it’s fair to say the aforementioned claim is an exaggeration of some sorts. I’m not saying the school teams and university teams haven’t drawn crowds of that magnitude on occasion, but I highly doubt they are able to do so time and time again.
“is their an u19 and u21 rugby league comp?” SA
Ha! We have an U-20 competition called the National Youth Competition. Its televised matches draw higher ratings than the Stupid 14s televised matches! Fancy that, an U-20 rugby league competition holding more drawing power than the so-called “elite” club/provincial rugby competition in the world!
“do rugby league teams get 40 000 people to their pre season games?” SA
Do South Africa’s Stupid 14 teams draw 40,000 people to their regular season games?
“rugby league is a small insignificant sport who cares if league is big in Aus.” SA
This is an Australian sports website. The focus on this site is on Australian sport. We do not care about what happened in South Africa. Go to a South African website if you want to talk about your overhyped sport.
For the record, the Papua New Guineans are far more patriotic about rugby league than South Africans are about rugby union.
Nick said | February 12th 2010 @ 1:42am | Report comment
As a south african i have to point out corrections to you Realist.
rugby league players tend to be better athletes — most of the forwards in rugby union are just overweight toffs who have the hand-eye coordination of a drunken 3-year-old kid!
one word pierre spies, enough said on that, better athletes in what way can you name me one league player that can rus faster than bryan habana and tonderai chavanga, which league player is stronger than pierre spies or criag burden?
Considering the bulk of South Africa’s Stupid 14 teams draw pitiful crowds to their matches, I think it’s fair to say the aforementioned claim is an exaggeration of some sorts. – pitiful crowds??? the average for SA home support was 35 000, and yes schools in SA pull crowds up to 10 000 if not more, paarl gym vs paarl boys, paul roos vs grey bloem, bishops vs rondebosch, affies vs waterkloof, many more….
We have an U-20 competition called the National Youth Competition.
both our u19 and u21 comps are televised too
Do South Africa’s Stupid 14 teams draw 40,000 people to their regular season games.
they do, the recent stormers vs boland game (bottom of the currie cup team) pulled in 40 000 people in the new cape town stadium, 70 000 capacity
For the record, the Papua New Guineans are far more patriotic about rugby league than South Africans are about rugby union.
i cant speak for them and neither can you, all i no is that rugby is culture in SA its what people talk about everywhere you go, it unites the country people love the springboks and it has just been regonised as one of the most iconic sport brands in the world. http://sport.iafrica.com/features/1847700.htm
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
“one word pierre spies, enough said on that, better athletes in what way can you name me one league player that can rus faster than bryan habana and tonderai chavanga, which league player is stronger than pierre spies or criag burden?”
How many forwards in rugby union have the hand-eye coordination, ball skills and creativity that is required to play at standoff and halfback? Quite a few second-rowers and locks in rugby league have the ability to play five-eighth. I’ve never seen a rugby union forward have a passing game of any calibre.
A regular Springbok prop wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the NRL match because they’re too fat, too unfit and too clumsy.
When the former Springbok captain, Tiaan Strauss, tried his hand in the NRL he failed miserably. So did Garrick Morgan when he tried his hand for the Crushers.
A real athlete in either code of rugby needs to have great stamina, a good kicking game, good tackling ability, good footwork, a creative mind, good ball-skills and good hand-eye-coordination. Johnathon Thurston and Darren Lockyer fit the aforementioned list. Bryan Habana is fast, but he lacks the ball skills and kicking game that is required to play in the halves, thus the reason he’s confined to playing on the wing. He’s no where as talented as Greg Inglis or Israel Folau. You’ll never see Habana leap as high, throw a ball as far or put on a tep like Inglis and Folau are able to do on a weekly basis.
As for the crowds. I see plenty of empty seats whenever I glance over the South-African based Stupid 14 games.
Do the South Africans risk being shot at by the military just so they can see a game of rugby union? The Papua New Guineans risk being shot at by the military just so they can attend a rugby league match!
Siva Samoa said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:52am | Report comment
great news for the nrl. what about the rest of the rugby league world realist ? do they get 1 billion deals deals or even $140million over five years ? I know which code I’d rather be working for !
Realist said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Stop trolling the site with off-topic comments!
Nick said | February 13th 2010 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
How many forwards in rugby union have the hand-eye coordination, ball skills and creativity that is required to play at standoff and halfback? Quite a few second-rowers and locks in rugby league have the ability to play five-eighth. I’ve never seen a rugby union forward have a passing game of any calibre.
pretty much every loose fowrd, 6,7 and 8 have the skill of backline players and have the size of fowards.
A regular Springbok prop wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the NRL match because they’re too fat, too unfit and too clumsy. um beast mtwarira, cj vander linder would easliy.
When the former Springbok captain, Tiaan Strauss, tried his hand in the NRL he failed miserably.
tiaan strauss was dropped from the springboks had never played in a game of rugby league in his life and played a full season for cronulla before he stopped by saying it was boring and too one dimensional.
Bryan Habana is fast, but he lacks the ball skills and kicking game that is required to play in the halves, thus the reason he’s confined to playing on the wing. He’s no where as talented as Greg Inglis or Israel Folau. You’ll never see Habana leap as high, throw a ball as far or put on a tep like Inglis and Folau are able to do on a weekly basis.
so you are comapring differnt positions now, okay bryan habana would leave greg inglis for dead on the pitch and stepping dont me foolish most of habans trys are from individual brilliance, skill wise francoius steyn is miles ahead of thurston, can thurston kick over 60 meters and break the line?
Do the South Africans risk being shot at by the military just so they can see a game of rugby union? The Papua New Guineans risk being shot at by the military just so they can attend a rugby league match!
No people unfortunalty get killed in SA when club matches are played because of supporters who raid the field when they dont like the refs call or if brawls happen and they join in. its bad and this is just stupid because if you are trying to show who has the more radical support beacuse of violence and threats you have a problem.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
“pretty much every loose fowrd, 6,7 and 8 have the skill of backline players and have the size of fowards.”
Rubbish!
“tiaan strauss was dropped from the springboks had never played in a game of rugby league in his life and played a full season for cronulla before he stopped by saying it was boring and too one dimensional.”
He quit because he sucked. He played two seasons for the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks in the ARL and Super League 1996 and 1997, respectively.. I’m not sure whether he played a full season in either either competition.
“so you are comapring differnt positions now, okay bryan habana would leave greg inglis for dead on the pitch and stepping dont me foolish most of habans trys are from individual brilliance, skill wise francoius steyn is miles ahead of thurston, can thurston kick over 60 meters and break the line?”
Speculation. Every try I’ve seen Habana score has involving him running as straight as a bullet while there was no one in front of him. Anyone can do that. I’ve never seen him draw an opponent or two out of the defensive line and convince them to overlook the players they were marking — Inglis uses his clever footwork and smart line running game to do this regularly. I’ve never seen Habana hand-off a player like Inglis did during a SOO match.
Every flyhalf I’ve seen in the Springboks’ side has been a slow and uncoordinated. It’s obvious the they are selected is for their ability to kick the ball long and goal kicking ability. I’ve never seen a Springbob flyhalf with the footwork, ball skills, creativity and tackling skills of a Johnathon Thurston or Darren Lockyer.
Francoius who? I just looked at a few videos of him on YouTube. The only thing he has going in his favour is a good step and a good place kicking game. I didn’t see him employ the same array of short kicks (he used one, but it wasn’t spectacular and it was in broken-field play), long passes and deceptive dummies that Thurston uses on a regular basis. Nor did I see him draw in two or more players with sheer skill and creativity, which is another great facet of Thurston’s game.
You’re asking me whether Thurston has ever made a line break? He’s made tonnes of them during his career and, has set up tonnes more!