Rugby World Cup: Second most important in the world?
By Adrian Musolino, 21 Sep 2011 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- 2011 Rugby World Cup, football, Football World Cup, rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies
208 Have your say

Wallabies player Quade Cooper runs during the Rugby World Cup Pool C match between Australia and Ireland at Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
In a column earlier this year I asked which World Cup/world championship is the second most important after FIFA’s World Cup. I argued that with multiple and competitive representatives spread over six continents, and a tournament that is considered the ultimate prize within that sport, rugby’s World Cup deserved the silver medal.
After all, basketball and hockey’s world championships and increasingly cricket’s World Cup merely preach to the converted, I thought – the first two somewhat overshadowed by their sports’ Olympic Games’ participation, and the latter lost in the midst of three forms of the game and too many insignificant internationals.
Has that opinion changed with the 2011 Rugby World Cup underway? Yes and no.
If the opening matches of the Rugby World Cup have taught us anything, it’s that the gap between the traditional powerhouses and the minnows is undoubtedly getting smaller.
Romania, Japan, USA, Namibia, Canada and co have at one point or another threatened more established rugby nations. No longer are the minnows consistently being walloped by cricket scorelines, such as the Wallabies’ 142-0 demolition of Namibia at the 1999 World Cup. They are edging ever closer, although slowly.
And the increasing competitiveness of countries such as Russia, Japan and the United States in particular will only help rugby establish more of a fanbase in markets that can significantly sway a sport’s economic wellbeing.
That growing presence will only cement and grow the World Cup’s reach and, therefore, importance.
But the current format of the Rugby World Cup doesn’t lend itself to creating strong momentum and, therefore, maximum return of attention, with games too spread out and too many insignificant pool matches in too few pools.
Despite their increased competitiveness, there is still an element of the tournament going through the motions as the powerhouses account for the rest in the pool stages. Combined with the drawn out format, it feels too elongated and insignificant for much of the early stages, which lessens its impact – certainly compared to the FIFA World Cup.
While rugby fans are likely to charge at me like the All Blacks on attack for saying so, this drawn out format and predictability are part of the reason for Channel Nine’s shabby Rugby World Cup coverage.
Beginning on the same weekend as the AFL and NRL finals, the World Cup was always going to put on the back burner somewhat.
But Channel Nine knows all too well that the latter stages of the tournament conveniently falls post-NRL finals; in that funny period of the year heading into summer when a number of the fringe codes put their best foot forward – Bathurst, Spring Racing Carnival etc.
So why bother giving the tournament the respect it deserves during the insignificant pool stage at this inconvenient period? It’s all about the latter stages in October as, barring upsets (not something the Rugby World Cup is renowned for), the Wallabies should be featuring in the semis with the likes of the All Blacks, Springboks, England and co.
But the strength of rugby and more so football World Cups is that in places like Australia they can and will preach and appeal to the masses, beyond the traditional heartlands.
So going back to my initial question on which is the second most important tournament, perhaps that can be proven by more intangible factors than representatives and contenders. Perhaps it comes down to a general mood that pervades the participating countries, albeit spread over multiple contents.
Despite the lacklustre pool stage, in a place like Adelaide, where rugby remains an outsider code misunderstood by a population that hasn’t grown up appreciating the game let alone the rules, pubs are decked out in Rugby World Cup paraphernalia and rugby fans and non-fans alike come together to watch live games.
The great strength of the Rugby World Cup is twofold. Firstly, how quickly it has grown in terms of its status within the game, having only started in 1987 at a time when rugby was still a few years off professionalism – and the room for growth as the minnows become more competitive. And secondly, how the tournament transcends the game’s traditional supporter bases.
As Fox Sports’ football pundit Andy Harper recently wrote in an article comparing the Socceroos and the Wallabies, “‘Rugger’ became the play-thing of the industrialists, landed gentry and, by extension, the universities.
“That “old boys’ network of professionals and industry captains (bankers, lawyers, accountants etc) that has underpinned rugby’s commercial acceptance.”
At domestic level that may well be the case – a game with strong pockets of support in a few areas, led first and foremost by the NSW ‘establishment’.
The game at domestic level doesn’t have the mass appeal it needs in enough pockets – see the inability to get a domestic professional competition going in Australia.
But through the Wallabies, rugby union is able to transcend those limitations. How this has happened is debatable. But perhaps it is in part thanks to the great legacies left by former Wallabies’; a respected winning culture, cultivating a strong and powerful brand.
Together with the Australian cricket team, it was the winning Australian national team that represented the country so strongly here and abroad – before the Socceroos were regularly World Cup qualifiers themselves and had achieved mainstream appeal.
This is the great strength of the Wallabies. Like the Socceroos, they have come to represent so much more than where their game stands.
And that’s part of the reason why the Rugby World Cup is the second most important tournament in the world, or in Australia, at least.
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- 2011 Rugby World Cup, football, Football World Cup, rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies


September 21st 2011 @ 7:26am
Whites said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:26am | Report comment
It may be second but a very distant second. We’ll have to wait until after the NRL and AFL finals but I don’t get the impression this tournament has really cut through to general sporting fans in the way the football world cup and the 2003 RU world cup have in the past.
September 21st 2011 @ 8:43am
WQ said | September 21st 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Rubbish, you only have to look at the papers to know that the general sports fan is interested, I suspect you are a soccer playing Australian?
September 21st 2011 @ 10:15am
JAJI said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
WQ the fact Channel Nine wouldnt even show Australias hardest game in the group stage LIVE tells you how much the average “Current Affair-NRL watching” Nine viewer is interested……let alone not showing the opening match of the tournament instead of a Current Affair. You will get mainstream attention after the NRL/AFL is finished – though in Melbourne that is when the Harry Kewell circus starts and in any event the Wallabies may be gone within a week of the NRL Grand Final being complete.
If this was the Socceroos and it was the biggest sporting event in the world would their first stage game against a Germany or England be put on delay? I seriously doubt it
September 21st 2011 @ 2:34pm
soapit said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
1st, noones saying its a bigger event than soccer
2nd, i think if a similar match in a soccer world cup was on 9 at the same time as a league semi you’d get the exact treatment the rugby got. it was a way for 9 to stretch out the football audience and make sure they watched as many ads as possible (as opposed to taping one and skipping the ads). makes good commercial sense for 9 to do it that way.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:43am
Ben G said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:43am | Report comment
It wasn’t even live and everyone I spoke to talked about what a horrible game Australia v Ireland was. I don’t think anyone in Australia has been converted. I normally enjoy watching the Wallabies but after watching the penalty kick-out, I just turned the NRL back on.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:54am
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
So true.
I remember back in 1999 getting up at 4am in the morning to watch all the wallabies games – now they’re shown at a decent time and it’s not even on my radar. I might quickly change the channel to check the score – thats about it.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:05pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Lol.. It was only horrible because Australia lost.
Lol.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:14pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Not really, i don’t watch it even when they win – i.e. this years tri nations (proud we won, but didn’t watch a minute)
September 21st 2011 @ 2:39pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Are you like the Warriors X111 of League?
September 21st 2011 @ 3:00pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
What?!
September 21st 2011 @ 7:50pm
ny ben said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Why would you come to a rugby forum to discuss how you dont watch rugby. If you really didnt watch the tri nations you missed some amazing rugby……not the Super 15 either?
September 21st 2011 @ 10:58am
Emric said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Jaji
Thats like saying that the soccer world cup has no appeal simply because the AFL decided they didn’t want it held in Australia and worked very hard to crush the notion. The last soccer world cup never went head to head with NRL nor AFL because the games were held between 10PM and 5AM.
I think its a fairly well known fact that the causal observer of Rugby in Australia has a prefered choice of sport in this case NRL or AFL – Rugby Union and Soccer play 3rd and 4th string in the sporting world to the other 2 codes.
The RWC is still a product in growth and while Australia, the USA, Russia are not playing any games but their teams the fact that FTA tv channels are showing any interest is a step in the right direction – The conversion of the masses has to start somewhere so rugby has its foot in the door now we need to start building on that
September 21st 2011 @ 6:07pm
Chris said | September 21st 2011 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
It’s rubbish to say the football world cup didn’t go head to head with AFL and NRL – are you saying going head to head is purely 9-5pm? We are now operating in a world of 24 hour news. Last years football world cup dominated news services (including space in newspapers locally) and it tending both locally and globally at an extreme level.
September 22nd 2011 @ 6:24am
Emric said | September 22nd 2011 @ 6:24am | Report comment
FIFA’s world cup in 2010 was on between 10PM and 5AM between the dates 11th of June and 11th of July. AFL and NRL still got their regular time shares in the papers and on TV in Australia but last time I checked neither the NRL nor the AFL like playing games are 10PM at night let alone 2AM in the morning.
This world cup is taking on both the NRL and AFL final series – perhaps not so great for ratings in Australia
September 21st 2011 @ 2:23pm
Gumboot said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
As a Kiwi….. as if that matters, Go Aussie, although I can’t stand your whiny accent, it could be worse…..the last thing I want to hear is a Saffas accent, ANZAC, dig deep and do it but just don’t get carried away and beat the All Blacks….DIG DEEP,
Even though you’re a bunch of bastards, you are the most unbelievable bastards that doesn’t mind if NZ won the rugby World Cup because it’s unthinkable………DO IT, Forget Dwyers excuses, Forget Jones……Just do it
DIG DEEP
Coopers galore, ring top.
September 21st 2011 @ 5:29pm
Gumboot said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Botor cyles and Coopers, twist it……..Deans?
September 21st 2011 @ 8:24am
JAJI said | September 21st 2011 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Some fans of Athletics may argue with you here…globally the coverage of someone like Usain Bolt dwarves that of the Rugby World Cup…but then again as you say the World Athletics Championships (even though it involves dozens of countries) does have to compete with an Olympics and in addition is held every 2 years not 4….so in any 4 year cycle there are 2 World Championships and an Olympics whereas in Rugby there is just one tournament
Other events that spring to mind include the UEFA Champions League Final however thats every year, and the European Championships – every 4 years – but then again these events compete with the FIFA World Cup and in the Champions League Final case involves 2 teams – though Chelsea v Manchester United in 2008 had large swathes of Asia and Africa watching such is the appeal of the Premier League
The results in this Rugby World Cup have indeed been much closer than the 80-150 point drubbings in the past. The tournament does lack the “cut throat” nature of the first 2 weeks of the FIFA world cup as far as upsets goes – look at 2002 FIFA World Cup when defending champions France and Argentina were knocked out in the first round or in 2010 when France and Italy went home…..however that will change as the European rugby scene gets stronger and fringe countries have more an more players playing in that scene and get stronger and stronger
This World Cup has been helped by a favourable time zone – the last time the FIFA World Cup was in the same time zone was in 2002 and even though Australia didnt even qualify local reaction was beyond belief and the final netween Brazil and Germany was the top 3 shows ratings wise on Channel Nine for the year
Speaking of Channel Nine coverage has been a disgrace but did you really expect anything different from the so called “Wide World of Sports”? A Channel that wont sacrifice a show like A Current Affair for the Opening game of the tournament indicates where its demograph and tastes lie. What is amusing is that if Australia get eliminated in the quarter finals now the draw has been turned upside down the whole plan would have backfired on them….
September 21st 2011 @ 6:08pm
Brian said | September 21st 2011 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
He’s refering to the 2nd biggest world championships. Obviously both the Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics & Euros are bigger events, but they are not signle sport world championships.
September 21st 2011 @ 8:46am
Tigranes said | September 21st 2011 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Adrian do you think that maybe the world cup should expand to include more nations so that you can have say 8 pools of three teams?
I dont believe comparing it to the soccer world cup is not a good comparison in that regard, rugby is far more physically demanding. Perhaps increasing squad sizes to 35 might be the answer?
I do agree that the rugby world cup does get a lot of support from people who otherwise might not be interested…and when rugby world cups roll around, you do get the occassional soccer pundit saying its clearly not a world cup, interestingly I have yet to read anything like it in relation to this world cup yet.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:08pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
I would rather it be 6 pools of 4… Therefore 24 teams in total.
Top 2 from each pool qualify (thats 12 in total) PLUS the next BEST 4 teams based on points.
They all progress to a top 16 spot.. Then from then on its all Knock out…
September 21st 2011 @ 2:36pm
soapit said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
that’d be a format i could get behind mate.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:42pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Reason it comes up is because Japan is hosting the RWC in 2019.
So what happens if they dont get out of Pool Play? It would be nice for a nation to say they got to the Top 16 playoffs, who knows.. The minnows could actually cause an upset in these Knockout stages and progress to the Quarters.
September 21st 2011 @ 3:48pm
soapit said | September 21st 2011 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
good point, especially as it more like ‘when’ they dont get out of pool play with the current format.
September 21st 2011 @ 5:05pm
Lorry said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
I don’t think it matters whether Japan gets out of the RWC 2019 pool stages…
South Africa were fairly hopeless at the last Football World Cup and noone seemed to mind so much…
The real shame, I think, was that France didnt win the 2007 world cup… it’s only a shame if the host is a real contender and yet doesnt perform well.
Plus, France is one of the few sides who could win both football and rugby WCs (along with England and, perhaps, one day Argentina?…)
September 21st 2011 @ 7:24pm
MKS said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
I’d say Australia have a greater chance than England
September 21st 2011 @ 8:48pm
bokka said | September 21st 2011 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
MKS – “I’d say Australia have a greater chance than England”
Dude, England has already done it. So no, Australia does not have a greater chance.
September 22nd 2011 @ 6:06am
Ivan said | September 22nd 2011 @ 6:06am | Report comment
England have a good chance of taking the next Cricket WC too. That would make them 3/3 of the biggest ones me thinks?
September 22nd 2011 @ 8:55am
Ami35 said | September 22nd 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Someone tell this guy he’s dreeaaaming
September 22nd 2011 @ 8:59am
Al said | September 22nd 2011 @ 8:59am | Report comment
England winning the Football World Cup?
September 21st 2011 @ 8:46am
Justin said | September 21st 2011 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Matches need to spread in in RWC more than FIFa. The physical demands are enormous and the minnows have copped the rough end of the stick. When they tire the scores may blow out as the rest periods they are getting is so much smaller than the bigger nations.
September 21st 2011 @ 9:10am
Seiran said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Exectly. This article is obviously written by someone who is on the outside looking in. Which I suppose, has some positives in that it gives us a different perspective of how casual rugby viewers, see the sport.
Personally, I would prefer to see three games played on fridays, and dropping the mid-week matches. This would make it a more level playing schedule for major and minnow teams.
I also don’t think Nine has not shown the matches because of any predictability or a ‘drawn out format’. Nine has simply not shown the comp as it doesn’t think there is/was an interest, which is total bull. So far they have chosen to delay live Wallaby matches, and have totally ignored some excellent pool matches such as the Eng/Argie match and the Wales/Boks match.
If Nine had a clue they would have played these matches. Especially as there is such a large immigrant community in Australia from South Africa, England, Pacific Islands, and NZ, you can be sure there would be huge interest in the pool matches in QLD and NSW.
I emailed a complaint to Nine over a week ago and they have chosen not to reply to my email. This is just another display of Nines contempt for its potential viewers. Because of this attitude, I choose to watch streaming matches on the internet.
September 21st 2011 @ 9:31am
AGO74 said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Seiran – I think you are massively overstating the casual sports fans interests in watching a RWC game that doesn’t involve Australia. As for non-Australia matches Channel 9 knows that for those people who are genuinely interested, that most of them probably have Foxtel which diminishes potential audience further.
September 21st 2011 @ 9:32am
Justin said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
So why buy the rights?
September 21st 2011 @ 9:35am
AGO74 said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:35am | Report comment
You’d have to ask Channel 9 that one, but presumably for whatever price they paid, they figured that even with showing a limited number of matches that they could still make some return on it.
September 21st 2011 @ 7:33pm
Seiran said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Justin, they obviously bought the rights from Fox, solely so no one else could.
September 21st 2011 @ 7:32pm
Seiran said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
AG074, I’m not saying they should play all the matches, but I’m pretty sure that if they played Aus, Bok, Eng, and NZ matches live they would get the audiences.
Over 1mil people tuned into to see each of the Wallaby games so far. There is a population big enough in Australia to make watching these live rugby matches viable.
Especially as when many of these games are on, Gem prefers to air reruns of antiques road show.
Which do you thnk would pull more viewers, NZ v France or Antiques roadshow?
September 21st 2011 @ 9:34am
Chris said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:34am | Report comment
may i ask what do you use to stream now that myp2p seem to have gone down? Ta
September 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm
soapit said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
just do a google search mate. dont think i’m allowed to say on here but there’s forum out there thats listing the world cup games each week.
September 21st 2011 @ 7:28pm
Seiran said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
look for some thing along the lines of free football dot eu
September 21st 2011 @ 10:00am
Gavin Norman said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Nine actually showed some of the major pool games live into Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth on GEM, while Sydney/Brisbane got the short end of the stick.
Same for example on Saturday, the game was live on GEM in Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth, while delayed in traditional markets, obviously to retain viewers post NRL games.
The Rebel Army have been successfully campaigning Nine to change this.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:58pm
Football United said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:58pm | Report comment
yay us
September 21st 2011 @ 9:20am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Adrian,
“While rugby fans are likely to charge at me like the All Blacks on attack for saying so, this drawn out format and predictability are part of the reason for Channel Nine’s shabby Rugby World Cup coverage.”
I think this is a little naive. Channel 9 could well have shown the Australia v Ireland match (an important match for the wallabies, and a result that surprised many) on one of its digital channels, but chose to simply put it on delay and ran the usual asinine American reruns on its other channels so that the game wouldn’t affect its ratings for the NRL finals match between the Dragons and Broncos. That decision tells you everything you need to know about Channel 9′s decision to buy the RWC rights; namely, they bought them so it’s AFL televising competitors couldn’t undermine 9′s coverage of the NRL by televising RWC matches (particularly big match ups) at the same time. This also explains why 9′s coverage has not just been bad and even insulting in terms of scheduling, but why it’s so pathetically lazy as well.
Also, the reason that games are spread out more is the recovery time players need after a top grade Rugby match is quite a bit higher than for soccer. In soccer players are exhausted post match from extensive running, but they suffer no real physical battering. In rugby, players and bashed pillor to pillor in these big games and they need about a week to get over it before they can be at their best again. Just look at how Samoan player who recently complained to the IRB through his twitter account on how 4 days was too little a turn around for his team to be able to compete with the more well rested welsh.
Other than that, I broadly agree with your article’s main points about the appeal of the RWC for Australians. I became a Rugby fan as a result of watching a similar ‘festival of rugby’ 10 years ago when the British and Irish Lions toured Australia and the Wallabies won a famous victory (their first against the traditional combined home nation’s side in over 100 years of playing). The history and atmosphere that the entire event was enveloped in was intoxicating and I’ve been a passionate rugby fan ever since.
September 21st 2011 @ 9:54am
clipper said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Dan, agree with you on the reasoning behind Ch9 coverage – I’ve been saying it for ages. There can be no other excuse as the Aust. / Ireland game rated well in Sydney, even on delay.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:22am
AGO74 said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Let’s look at saturday’s game another way – and I’m not trying to provoke rugby supporters here. Perhpas the IRB or ARU whoever it was that signed off on this allowed it because if sports fans in rugby’s major markets of Sydney and Brisbane had to choose between NRL semi-final or Wallabies v Ireland that a lot of fans would have chosen NRL and hence not watched Wallabies at all. Hence live elsewhere on 7, 10 or GEM dignital channel would likely have received a lower audience than the delayed coverage on Channel 9. Genuine rugby supporters with access to Fox would have ignored Saints v Broncos and been watching it on Fox anyway. so the Channel 9 game is irrelevant to them anyway
September 21st 2011 @ 10:40am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:40am | Report comment
I can see what you’re saying, but personally just given the other factors at play – the generally sub-standard quality of Channel 9′s presentation and the laziness of the coverage – I tend to think this is more to do with a cynical desire to simply eliminate competition for 9′s primary product (being the NRL).
September 21st 2011 @ 10:57am
AGO74 said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:57am | Report comment
There are two parties who signed the TV contract and all those things get discussed at contract negotiations. If IRB weren’t satisfied, they shouldn’t have signed. I suggest your conspiracy is off the mark.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:07am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Yes, “the two parties” – one being the IRB. I’m not sure how aware you are of that organisation, but it hardly has a history of looking out for Australia’s interests… It’s badly run as it is (a general history of incompetence would be a fair description) and it’s likely that 9 got away with whatever conditions it wanted.
I suggest you factor that in before discounting the prospect of cynicism on behalf of even so “noble” *cough* an organisation as Channel 9.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:36am
AGO74 said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Never implied that 9 was noble. If it makes you feel any better, Channel 9 have screwed NRL over on many fronts over the years.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:12pm
WarriorsX111 said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
The timing of the Ireland vs Australian game is not so much important in Australia according to the IRB but more for the bigger and richer audience in Europe and South Africa.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:50pm
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
8:30 NZ time would probably have been the only time they could do it for Europe (not sure why the SA market would be that big a deal though – Ireland v Aus afterall), but they could have pushed it to Sunday as well – that would have meant avoiding the NRL finals altogether.
September 21st 2011 @ 5:13pm
Lorry said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
League fans claim Channel 9 have been screwing rugby league ‘for years’, but I just don’t get this…. It doesn’t seem to stack up with the facts.
Simply due to the wall-to-wall coverage League gets on 9 (footy show, sunday roast, huge segment on weekend sports shows and news coverage), you’d have to say League does very well by Channel 9.
It’s like those who complain about News LTDs coverage of League – hello?! Have you seen how many pages it gets?!
Perhaps the only way Ch 9 screws over league would be not giving it any coverage in Melbourne – then again, if you’ve ever been there, you’ll know the situation is awful, it’s like Brazil in regards to football – other sports just don’t get a look in, and you get the often mawkish homages to AFL by local academics and the intelligensia
September 21st 2011 @ 5:14pm
Rusty said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
SA are rugby mad – and there would probably be more people watching the IRE v AUS game in SA than in AUS
September 22nd 2011 @ 4:48pm
Ivan said | September 22nd 2011 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
I have to agree with Rusty. The streets of Cape Town were quiet even when Aus played Ireland. We love to watch good Rugby – regardless of who plays.
Me for example, I watch every international game that shows on the telly, I rewatch every Springbok game 10x, unless we lose to Australia.
I rewatch highlights on Youtube everyday,
When theres no Currie Cup, Heineken Cup, 3N, or any other professional Rugga to watch, I go to High schools and watch the kids play.
Rugby is religion in SA. Fact
September 21st 2011 @ 10:11am
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I really doubt that the Australia vs Ireland game would have affected the NRL ratings….in previous years the tri nations has been on at the same time as an NRL semi final and it hardly attracts half the numbers the NRL match.
I’m a casual fan and i haven’t really watched any of the other matches more so just flicked to check the score…the wallabies game on saturday was difficult to watch as the game just didn’t flow, i’d be surprised if another wallaby pool game attracts an audience that surpasses the ireland match after that poor showing.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:38am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
You can doubt it all you like, the fact is Channel 9 had the option of airing it simultaneously and didn’t. What does that tell you? Channel 9 have clearly done this to stifle competition and that’s all.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:49am
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:49am | Report comment
It doesn’t tell me anything apart from they know what is going to attract the most viewers and what isn’t.
As i said, Seven used to show it live and Bledisloe cup games would struggle to match the ratings of a regular season Friday Night NRL game…..you do the maths.
Fact is – 9 knows what is going to get the ratings….hence their decision.
In all seriousness though, it should be shown live. Channel 9 as a business just don’t care about the sports they show, it’s the same reason why the storm don’t even get shown into Victoria.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:04am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
I’m not debating whether the NRL would have had any serious competition from the RWC match – I’m positive it wouldn’t have, but it seems to me that 9 did it so as to ensure that their NRL coverage got the maximum ratings possible and decided that the majority of Rugby fans would watch it on fox (I did).
Personally it doesn’t really bother me, as I never watch any NRL or RWC on Channel 9 because of their inexplicable decision NOT to show these matches in HD. This is particularly odd to me with the NRL finals – I cannot for the life of me work out why reruns of stupid American shows are given precedence over the prospect of airing the high rating NRL finals in HD. Doubtless the same will happen for the finals of the RWC.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:26am
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Totally agree with you there mate.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:16pm
Whites said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Totally agree on the HD. Finally got Fox Sports in HD this year and you really notice the difference. Hopefully in 2013 Fox will have every NRL game in HD like the AFL next year.
September 22nd 2011 @ 6:42am
WarriorsX111 said | September 22nd 2011 @ 6:42am | Report comment
….in previous years the tri nations has been on at the same time as an NRL semi final and it hardly attracts half the numbers the NRL match.
Renegade. Some tri nations match in the past use to get over 3 million views on sevens.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:28pm
clipper said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Renegade, the difference is that it can be argued that the Storm games would not rate more than the repeats of 2 and a bit men or whatever rubbish repeats they chose to put on, but the Aust / Ireland game would’ve outrated what they were showing on Gem or Go, going by the 352k rating it had delayed, so that is why it looks like they were trying to protect the NRL ratings, which is their prerogative, but hard to justify from the consumers viewpoint.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:34pm
NF said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Oh please clipper a pool game involving Wallabies would get outrated by an NRL game simple as that thus it was delayed the whole protection line is rubbish really if you knew where union stands in Australian sporting landscape. So Union should know it’s role and be thankful of the coverage that have now come quarter/semi you expect an increase in ratings for the Wallabies you think.
It’s no secret you hate rugby league you’re contractual dissing of it is well known around here so I can’t take anything you say about rugby league seriously.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:40pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
I appreciate what your conveying however i don’t believe they decided to do it to protect NRL ratings.
If it was shown on Gem i think you would have the reverse affect and the wallabies game would have attracted less than the 352k due to 9 not being able to capture the majority of viewers who stayed on to watch the rugby after the NRL.
A lot of viewers are simply sport fans, which i know was the case in my household….we stayed on 9 to watch the rugby afterwards but if it was on at the same time, we wouldn’t have been able to do that and therefore wouldn’t have watched the RWC at all.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:26pm
clipper said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
NF – I never said the Wallabies game would outrate the NRL, far from it. The point was that it would outrate the shows normally on Go / Gem, which typically get 120-150k, and seeing the delayed telecast got 352k, it is safe to assume that, whereas the Storm games do not get over the 120-150k mark, so it can be argued it makes commercial sense to screen those repeats on Go and Gem as they rate better.
And I do see your point Renegade, but there are people in Sydney who prefer Rugby to League, and lots of Kiwi and SA viewers.
September 21st 2011 @ 3:56pm
Rob9 said | September 21st 2011 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Suprise suprise to see you here NF- How can anyone take your opinion on Rugby Union seriously? When anyone has anything to say that isn’t a glowing endorsement of League (even if it’s constructive criticism) you start bagging them.
‘Union should be thankful of the coverage they have’. You’re kidding yourself. You wouldn’t have the foggiest idea of Unions standing in Australia’s sporting landscape. If you did you wouldn’t be writing such rubbish. Nobodys saying Union has a bigger market share than League but despite the pool stages being run over the duration of the NRL finals, 9′s coverage is an absolute disgrace. I was at a large Brisbane establishment on Saturday night and I’d estimate two thirds of the crowd flocking around the big screen with the Aus/Ire game on and one third watching the Broncos game… in Brisbane! Sure this boils down to 9 delaying Australia’s biggest group stage game but plain and simple 9 doing this is a move to maximise their viewership of both games. They have existing contracts with the NRL that mean they have to play each finals game live. If they played the Union on one of their other stations, one of the biggest finals game of this serise so far would have been a ratings flop compared to what it could have been. Greedy and a slap in the face to fans but at the end of the day they’re running a business and they’re doing what they have to do to maximise profits.
September 21st 2011 @ 4:15pm
clipper said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Thanks Rob9, mirrors what I’ve been saying. I too was at a place where the 2/3 majority were watching the Union (to be fair it was the eastern suburb, which is pro Union), with a couple of Irish amongst us. Needless to say at the end of it everyone had become at least 1/16th Irish, and joined in with the ‘craic’
September 21st 2011 @ 4:17pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
Rob9,
How do you explain the Bledisloe cup match attracting a lower audience than NRL regular season games….
Your kidding yourself if you think more people would have rather watched the rugby.
September 21st 2011 @ 4:30pm
Rob9 said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
OK Renegade, take deep breath and read what I wrote again… carefully… At what point (apart from an observation at the pub) did I compare official TV ratings between these 2 games?
We will never no what would have happened ratings wise if the games were on free to air TV at the same time. But one thing is for absolute sure, Channel 9′s ratings for the coverage of the Broncos/Dragons game would have been considerably smaller if people had access to the Aus/Ire game on free to air tv.
September 21st 2011 @ 4:40pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Rob9,
“take a deep breath” lol please… save yourself the embarrasment.
You said the ratings would have been significantly smaller for the broncos game if the rugby was on live….i doubt that for quite a few reasons however if it were the case it would also have weakened the ratings for the Aus/Ire game due to the fact a lot of people watched the wallabies game because it was on after the NRL. This would not have occurred if it was on at the same time.
Your argument works both ways.
September 21st 2011 @ 4:58pm
Rob9 said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Mate when you’re trying to create words out of thin air then you’re the only one who should be embarrassed.
Sure it works both ways. I haven’t suggested otherwise. But the fact remains that due to contracts with the NRL, 9 has to show all finals live on their main network. This being the case the Aus/Ire game copped the rough end of the stick and got delayed on free to air.
As I’ve already said, the way things panned out on Saturday night was a decision by Gyngell to maximise viewership of both games. In layman’s terms lots of people watching 9′s coverage of the NRL would have backed up and watched the WC. Vice versa if the decision was switched about viewing times. Play the games together and many viewers that would have happily watched both would then have to make a decision thus cutting ratings for both games.
September 22nd 2011 @ 7:15am
Emric said | September 22nd 2011 @ 7:15am | Report comment
FTA + Pay TV Aus V Ireland = 989,000
FTA + Pay TV NRL = 911,000
FTA = AFL = 993,000 (I could not find the game in the pay-tv Results)
PayTV-1 Live: RWC: Australia V Ireland Fox Sports 3 382,000
FTA-6 Nine’s Rugby: World Cup: Australia Vs. Ireland Nine 607,000 352,000 19,000 189,000 5,000 42,000
League-4. Rugby League Final Series Sf2 Nine 878,000 512,000 11,000 345,000 0 9,000
PayTV-38 Live: NRL On Fox Fox Sports 2 33,000 ???
AFL – 2 Ten’s AFL Finals 2011: 1st Semi Final West Coast V Carlton Ten 993,000 17,000 496,000 46,000 155,000 278,000
Results collected from
pay-tv : http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/09/pay-tv-ratings-week-38.html
FTA – http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/09/week-38-3.html
September 21st 2011 @ 9:53am
apaway said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Undoubtedly the Rugby World Cup has grown in significance and this year’s tournament has been great for the efforts of the so-called “minnows” such as Georgia, Japan and Romania. As the gap closes, so the early stages of the tournament will become more unpredictable – Argentina’s run in the 2007 RWC is proof of that.
And agree with other posters, the tournament cannot be compressed like the Football World Cup because the physical nature of the game would, I expect, make recovery very difficult.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:24am
Striker said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Half the teams dont have to qualify for the world cup in Rugby which shows how weak interantional Rugby is, untill all teams have to qualify like the soccer world cup then id say no its not the 2nd biggest behing Soccer World cup but its getting better, im sure Basketball is bigger than Rugby at least all there teams have to qualify for there world championship.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:32am
Brett McKay said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Striker, that’s not completely true: the eight teams reaching the QFs gain a spot for the next RWC, and while they don’t have to go through a qualifying stage per se, they still have to earn their spot with results. Remaining teams then go through regional qualifiers…
September 21st 2011 @ 10:58am
HardcorePrawn said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Wasn’t it the top 3 teams from the 2007 pool stages that got automatic qualification to the 2011 comp? Remember that Wales, Ireland and Italy didn’t reach the QFs last time. The IRB probably needed to give the rules a bit of a tweak to help out those under-performing sides, but it did also allow Tonga to get to NZ without having to play qualifiers; whether the lack of competitive games helped or hindered the Tongans I wouldn’t like to say.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:54am
Brett McKay said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
HP, you could well be right, now that I think about it, it might be the top three…
September 22nd 2011 @ 5:01pm
kiwidave said | September 22nd 2011 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
The tongans played Fiji and Samoa in the PNC.
Any other qualifyign games would have been against PNG or cook islands
September 21st 2011 @ 10:50am
Tigranes said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Striker
do you want to compare the level of interest between the rugby world cup and the basketball world cups…
September 21st 2011 @ 10:55am
Striker said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Yeah id love too im sure in Europe Basketball and in America and sth America Basketball is bigger.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:01am
Tigranes said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Striker
so the Eurobasket commands more interest in Britain and France than the six nations?
September 21st 2011 @ 11:12am
Striker said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Mate im not gonna argue with you but obviously you havent been to Greece,italy,Germany,Croatia,Serbia,Greece,Spain,France,Macedonia,Russia,Lithuania,Slovenia,Bosnia,Turkey and most of Continental Europe where Basketball is second to Soccer not Rugby.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:24am
Brick Lane said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Eurobasket has zero presence in the UK.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:34am
Striker said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Sorry Brick lane i didnt know Europe was made up of only the UK.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:48am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
You’re both wrong. Europe is made up of a collection of failing economies that have no hope in hell of paying their various debts to eachother and will pretty soon may not even be able to pay its many footballers their ridiculous salaries.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:41pm
soapit said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
so because its not the same as the soccer world cup, it cant be second best behind the soccer world cup. don’t follow that logic
September 21st 2011 @ 10:00am
Phil said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Mate If you are going to write a story at least be up to date with the competition there is no way as you stated that Australia, NZ, England & Sth Africa will feature in the semis as Australia will be playing Sth Africa in the 1/4 final
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:23pm
Cattledog said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Mate, you should put your brain in gear before accelerating with the pen about incorrect statements. That’s not confirmed yet. Whilst the likelyhood of those four featuring is not high due to Aust loss to IRE, you saying ‘there is no way’ is incorrect. Don’t count your chickens etc etc
September 21st 2011 @ 10:07am
Brick Lane said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Australia as a ‘sports mad nation’ has lost all credibility with me.
The Wallabies are one of the very few genuinely international teams you have.
Sorry, The Qantas Wallabies. The national team backed by the national carrier.
For their games to not be show live on free to air at a WORLD CUP which is practically being held at home.
Utterly disgraceful and when I told people overseas they all said the same thing “What!!? Really?!? In Australia?!?”
September 21st 2011 @ 10:55am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
To be fair this is due to several reasons:
1. The commercial cynicism of Channel 9
2. The relatively small following of Rugby in Australia
3. The bungling of the scheduling by the RWC organisers (they really shouldn’t have had a wallabies game on at the same time as an NRL final in the first place).
As for the whole affair resulting in you losing your faith in Australia as a “sports mad nation”, may I suggest that the rising rate of obesity is actually a far more worthy foundation for such sentiments.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:20am
Brick Lane said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
“The bungling of the scheduling by the RWC organisers they really shouldn’t have had a wallabies game on at the same time as an NRL final in the first place.”
It’s the World Cup!
A depressingly insular response. NRL isn’t watched by most of Australia, let alone…
September 21st 2011 @ 11:48am
peeeko said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
The dragons v broncos game would definitely out rate the wallabies v Ireland match and that is all channel 9 is concerned about
September 21st 2011 @ 11:54am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
I’m a rugby fan first and would hardly consider that response “insular”. I’m simply being realistic.
Can I ask put it to you another way:
Where is the other major population base that would have been interested in the Ireland match?
Ireland. And where is Ireland? On the other side of the world (i.e. a less than ideal timezone for top ratings).
If this is the case, which population base had the greatest viewer potential? We did, of course.
Now, in order to gain that great viewer potential, should the IRB have considered avoiding clashes with any other events if possible? Yes. Both the NRL and AFL finals only represented two matches over a weekend each. It is hardly being insular to suggest that Rugby – a niche sport in this country – could have benefitted by working around the country’s two major codes.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:54pm
Tigranes said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Dan I dont think the IRB is too concerned about NRL and AFL.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:59pm
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Tigranes,
I don’t think you understand the point I was trying to make…
No, the IRB isn’t concerned about them because it doesn’t give a toss about the Australian market. If it did, it would.
September 22nd 2011 @ 5:56am
robert said | September 22nd 2011 @ 5:56am | Report comment
rugby league takes itself too seriously..who farking cares about league outside sydney and queensland?..probably envious of the rugby world cup..
September 21st 2011 @ 11:55am
HardcorePrawn said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:55am | Report comment
I have to agree, it has amazed me that such a big international tournament, & one that the Australian team is capable of winning, is getting so little coverage.
I’m sure that we’re all in agreement regarding Nein’s lack of coverage, but it seems as if other media outlets are also guilty of this. In Melbourne the Age newspaper only gave the NZ/Tonga match a 2 sentence review, but devoted a double page spread in the same paper to that weekend’s English Premier League fixtures. Actually it was a double page spread devoted to Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool & Arsenal, with only a cursory mention to the teams that they would be playing.
When you also take into account the miles of newsprint concerned with the AFL – and yes, I know, Melbourne is an AFL city so it’s expected that the sport will get the lion’s share of the coverage, I appreciate that – it seems that the Rugby World Cup is almost an afterthought here.
In the UK rugby could probably be classed as a secondary sport too. It places well behind football (soccer) in the hearts and minds of a lot of sports fans, and in certain communities and areas falls behind rugby league and cricket too. But still ITV is broadcasting every match live, either on their primary channel for the major games, or on the digital station ITV4 for games involving the smaller nations, and Mike Tindall getting his head kissed in a bar makes front page news.
Sports-Mad Australia? Not according to the media…
September 21st 2011 @ 2:19pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
It still gets some good viewers in UK even thou its not on at Primetime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/12/itv1-rugby-world-cup
“ITV1′s Rugby World Cup kicks rivals into touch
Live coverage of England v Argentina pulls in nearly 4 million viewers,”
September 21st 2011 @ 2:33pm
oikee said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
I think you will find that most people here apart from rugby fans, don’t know who Tindell is, and they probably care less.
As the guy above said, he might have made the front page of Melbourne’s “the Age” if he had assulted someone or did something bad, it is the only way rugby league makes this paper in Melbourne. I noticed the other day after no coverage in this paper of NRL finals, the Lui assult on his girlfriend made the news in “the Age”.
So that gives you a clue what your up against with Australian sports and their coverage, and for Tigranes above, the AFL are not to concerned about Fifa and their world cup. They had no concerns vertually telling them to nick off, we wont be playing second fiddle to them. This is why we wont get a Football world cup here. It would cost them to much in compo.
The Foxsports coverage is brilliant anyhow, most rugby fans would have this service so you dont miss anything.
And you cant really expect league and AFL fans after sitting through a gruelling 26 week comp, suddenly stop everything to watch the Wallibies Ireland, so yes the IRB should have worked around this better.
And the Broncos/Dragons game was class and had a fairytale ending.
September 21st 2011 @ 5:08pm
Moaman said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Is that you,Lionel?
September 21st 2011 @ 10:30am
Sledgeandhammer said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Unfortunately the Australians games have been quite poor spectacles, however there have been some really entertaining matches in the pools.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:57am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:57am | Report comment
The Australia games? How so? They’ve played two matches. In one they were stodgy for the first half and then came out firing in the second to score 4 pretty impressive tries (largely set up by men who were out on Saturday), and in their second match they simply played dumb rugby.
September 21st 2011 @ 9:12pm
sledgeandhammer said | September 21st 2011 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
The Ireland match was dominated by a referee who did more blowing than an amazonian tribe with a bucket full of darts. A lot of the other matches have involved referees who interfered less in the play and in were played in better conditions. Very little rugby was played – this has been acknowledged by most commentators, and other teams including Wales and England players I heard interviewed.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:29am
Brick Lane said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I don’t get it.
I often wonder how Australia developed that US mindless sports entertainment mentality.
Unless games are 62-54 many Australians think it’s boring, WTF?!?
Anyone that thought Australia v Ireland was boring must be a robot.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:53am
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
I’m not a robot and it was boring.
It’s got nothing to do with big scores, the game just didn’t flow and was very hard to watch for 80 minutes….compare it to the 13-12 (low score) Broncos-Dragons semi final – there was a world of difference in terms of an entertaining product.
You can bottle and sell the broncos game…..can’t do much with the other.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:56am
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:56am | Report comment
And yet the rugby world cup final will outrate the NRL GF by a massive margin… what was that about bottling and selling?
September 21st 2011 @ 12:03pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Do you really think it will be by a massive margin….for a game that only happens once every 4 years and is the spectacle of the sport, it should but i’m not sure that it will.
Considering the Melbourne vs Manly regular season game attracted over 1M viewers (shown in only 2 cities) and the Bledisloe didn’t – I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the NRL does outrate it.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:16pm
Red Chief said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Bledisloe far outrated the Melbourne Manly game if you count NZ figures. If you dont, then take away all viewers in Sydney or Melbourne and see what you get. You cant count both the teams audience in one and not the other.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:31pm
Siva Samoa said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
the 2008 rugby league world cup werent given any thoughts by channel 9 either. most of the games were delayed for some reruns shows.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:52pm
Dan said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
You’re thinking nationally… I’m thinking internationally. And internationally the NRL GF won’t get a hundreth of what the RWC final will.
In that sense the RWC is something you can bottle, package and mass produce, where as the NRL sells for a couple bob at your local lemonade stand.
To be clear here, I actually like League, but don’t carry on in that imperious tone about the marketability of League over Union on the basis of one game and ONE market…
September 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Why would i count NZ figures mate….we’re talking about the Channel 9 in Australia.
As for your second statement, i didn’t count Melbourne – the game wasn’t even shown their until after midnight (was only aired in Sydney and Brisbane)….which is exactly why i made the point.
Your kidding if you think union outrates league in Australia….the fact your comparing ratings for internationals to club games is already a sign of defeat similar to how the Super 15 is compared to the Toyota Cup (U’20′s competition).
September 21st 2011 @ 1:09pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Dan,
If your talking internationally, then yes your correct however you were talking about Channel 9 mate hence my comparison within Australia….channel 9 are not broadcasting it across the globe!!
Anyways you’ve changed the topic – my original point was the wallabies-ireland game was not entertaining and i believe majority of people (be it rugby fans or sports fans) would agree.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:25pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
@ Renegade.
The majority of Sporting people DONT agree with you.
We enjoyed the game.
Oh thats right, i dont speak for the majority… and neither do you.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:28pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
@ Renegade.
ANd you wonder why Rugby fans come onto league threads to talk smut?
September 21st 2011 @ 2:31pm
Nathan of Perth said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
@ Kovana
“ANd you wonder why Rugby fans come onto league threads to talk smut?”
Everything I’ve learned about irritating Union and League people I’ve learned from League and Union people
j/k
September 21st 2011 @ 2:41pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
I don’t come onto rugby forums – i was interested to see if people actually thought the RWC was the second most important.
I think it is along with the Cricket but never mind that.
I commented because someone was clutching at straws as to why the rugby isn’t shown live and avoiding the fact that it doesn’t rate.
That being said, there’s no point of me arguing with rugby fans.
Happy to debate with AFL fans who have merit in what their saying while rugby fans i’ll debate with you (kovana) when Super 15 can be compared to the NRL….ok i’m stretching there, i’ll be more realistic and say when you can attract as many viewers as the Toyota Cup.
September 21st 2011 @ 2:44pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
@ Renegade, im under no illusions that the NRL outrates S15 IN AUSTRALIA.
NRL defeats the S15 ratings In Australia hands down.
SHOCKER!!! League is more popular than Rugby In Oz!!!
next.
September 21st 2011 @ 3:06pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Well it took a while but at least were on the same page now…
September 21st 2011 @ 3:22pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
@ Renegade.
Of course.. This is of course the ‘East Oz wide web’.
September 21st 2011 @ 4:11pm
Siva Samoa said | September 21st 2011 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
renegade, does toyota cup break pay tv records in its finals games?
September 21st 2011 @ 7:14pm
Rob9 said | September 21st 2011 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Renegade- ‘Why would i count NZ figures mate….we’re talking about the Channel 9 in Australia’.
Exactly! Channel 9 in Australia. What your figures fail to take into account are people watching on pay TV. As you might know every game of Rugby involving either the national team or one of the super rugby franchises is shown live on Fox, regardless of whether 7, 9 or 10 is showing it live or delayed. There is a considerably higher percentage of rugby fans that subscribe to pay TV than there are in the general population. Two reasons for this: 1. the dismal coverage the networks devote to Rugby in this country forcing many a rugby fan to become subscribers. 2. And the socio economic reasons (the class divide that still exists between the two codes and the higher class having the dollars to splash out on pay tv).
Now not saying that overall Union ratings stack up anything close to those of that the NRL receives. But get your facts straight before you go crowing about regular season NRL games out rating Bledisloes. The highest rating sport event ever aired on pay tv in this country was this years Super rugby final, watched by over half a million people. Despite the Bledisloe being shown on free to air I’d suggest the bulk of this half million would still be watching the game on pay. Hence dodging your free to air figures.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:22pm
Siva Samoa said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
renegade likes to pick one exciting nrl game and then compare it to a rugby union game with no tries. when the nz warriors played the broncos two weeks and ago and got thrash im sure the ireland/wallabies game would have been more exciting to watch at least both teams were still in the hunt till the end. the warriors lost before halftime.
September 22nd 2011 @ 8:25am
Emric said | September 22nd 2011 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Siva
The irony of all this is that Australian League Supporters are always quick to point out the Warriors and that NZ TV ratings and pay-tv topups to their competition when it suits their arguments V AFL Supporters.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:10pm
Terry Tavita said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
gee..rugby league..that little sport nobody cares about
September 21st 2011 @ 6:03pm
Jim:( said | September 21st 2011 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Except in Australia where more people do, and by a large majority. Thats why a few Rah Rah boys here have got their knickers in such a knot.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:13pm
Red Chief said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Rugby is a far more complex game than league, and in union you dont NEED tries to make it entertaing. In league you NEED tries to make an entertaining game, because the structure is so repetative it becomes boring if there isnt tries. Thats why every league fan thinks the Aust Ireland game must have been boring. I prefer a tight game with tries scored, but there is no way that the game was boring. Read any newspaper outside of Australia and they all pretty much agree that the game was one of the best so far. The reason its not reported like that in Australia? Simple. You lost!
Also, the reason the game didnt rate highly in Australia? Because it was delayed and everyone who was going to watch it didnt bother because they already knew Australia lost!
September 21st 2011 @ 12:24pm
Nathan of Perth said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Well, I’d say the tries do make it more entertaining but you’re quite right on not needing tries to be entertaining.
And yeah, not many supporters are going to really tune in for a humiliating delayed telecast of a defeat.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm
Tyree said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
I would consider myself a sports tragic but lean towards baseball and basketball having grown up in the states. I can’t call rugby league entertaining at all, in fact after bass masters classic on espn I find it the most boring sport in the world, it’s just the same thing on repeat for an hour.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:45pm
Matt S said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
And most sports aren’t? Basketball, let’s see, up down up down. American sports are for the brain dead anyway.
September 21st 2011 @ 1:54pm
Nathan of Perth said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
“American sports are for the brain dead anyway.”
*twitch twitch*
September 22nd 2011 @ 3:27am
John said | September 22nd 2011 @ 3:27am | Report comment
But in Basketball you get to see mad dunks!!!
September 21st 2011 @ 1:52pm
Renegade said | September 21st 2011 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Your a baseball fan – enough said…..
September 21st 2011 @ 2:15pm
Tyree said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
At least basketball has a contest for the ball, something that gives it some form of unpredictability. League is just mind numbingly dull.
September 21st 2011 @ 6:10pm
Jim:( said | September 21st 2011 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Again, you’re a baseball fan.
Opinion == 0;
September 21st 2011 @ 6:20pm
Nathan of Perth said | September 21st 2011 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
There’s nothing wrong with bloody baseball, god’s sake…
September 21st 2011 @ 2:22pm
kovana said | September 21st 2011 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Well thats your own opinion.
The game was a great display of defense and great tactics to completely nullify the Wallibies.
It seems you want ALL teams to play like the ozzies..
NEWSFLASH, if you try and play a game that suits the Ozzies.. you will LOSE.
More than one way to skin a cat!
“You can bottle and sell the broncos game…..can’t do much with the other.”
Say that to the Irish.
September 21st 2011 @ 12:20pm
Nathan of Perth said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Okay, that’s an idiotic representation of the US market that belies a very deep lack of familiarity. There are plenty of sports where the scoring is not constant and high, many of the more interesting American Football matches are very low scoring defensive affairs, MLS is popular, baseball is often quite low scoring and hardly the most adrenaline pounding of sports, NHL is also not exactly a 62-54 affair.
Stop using the US as your international bogeyman when you patently don’t know the country, the people or the sporting culture.
September 21st 2011 @ 10:56am
STEVEN ELLIS said | September 21st 2011 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Geez..who would have thought..Australian Television network promoting a solely local product over a truly global event…
Just a reflexion of australias mind numbingly insular and provincial lowbrow commercial media….
but what do you expect from our 3rd world media setup…
A fluff/beatup/feelgood puff piece local footy story will always trump an internaional focused story these days…
as long as its local..and they can cross promote it in one of there other cretinous shows..
but its not just about our true international codes Rugby and/or football..
australia has a host of athletes/teams acheiving on the world stage….and who are globally recognised
but they invariably get the scraps of coverage compared withthe saturation coverage afforded to the daily and banal exploits of our ..ahem local footy ..ahem ‘stars’..
ofcourse ..the usual argument is ”thats what is popular and what people want to see”..
I recall the qualification to the Olympics of our Olyroos made front page of sydney paper…
I cannot imagine that remotely happening these days..
is that a reflexion of change in footballs popularity ..
more likely the changing provincialism and inward focus of the local media..
September 21st 2011 @ 11:15am
Brick Lane said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:15am | Report comment
@STEVEN ELLIS
*Round of applause* bang on.
September 21st 2011 @ 11:37am
Fauntleroy said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:37am | Report comment
There is a PHD in that mate, and we could probably both write an essay or two, but you’re spot on.
There are plenty of pieces of social commentary which go to this issue – not necessarily sports focused – but certainly along the themes you’ve addressed in your last sentence. All the way back to Donald Horne’s “The Lucky Country” to the more recent “Advance Australia Where” by Hugh Mackay, its very easy to draw parallels between Australia’s increasing sense of insularity over the last decade, and the way that is reflected in sport, the only cultural language that is available to us.
No different to how a story about a dog stuck in a drainpipe can feature on channel 7/9/10 news, well before any update (if at all) on say, the Arab Spring, the near collapse of the global banking system, or the topping of a dictator or two.
Now, back to the RWC…
September 21st 2011 @ 11:53am
peeeko said | September 21st 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
I would not say australia is different to many other nations in this regard. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in preferring a local game. The Americans love their NFL, Canadians love their ice hockey, skandos love their handball,
September 21st 2011 @ 12:07pm
Fauntleroy said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
No problem with the love factor mate. No problem at all.
Point is, preference, and importance, are not always the same thing. News is news, because it is important, not because it is preferenced. And that’s the heart of the matter. We prefer to watch or read stories about dogs stuck in drain pipes, because its easy to ensconce yourself in a simple, pointless story with a happy ending. But its not important, and therefore it shouldn’t be news.
The Rugby WC is important, therefore it is news, and therefore, it SHOULD be reflected as such with due priority afforded to it. Since news stopped being news in this country a long time ago, and has become primarily a cross-promotional vehicle, thus we are having this discussion.
September 21st 2011 @ 5:29pm
Lorry said | September 21st 2011 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
very true fauntleroy…. there is a phd in that!
Even ABC nightly news has now gone cloyingly ‘local’
it’s a very strange phenomenon when, in fact, the world becomes more and more globalised and people more ‘inter-connected’ every day….
September 21st 2011 @ 12:03pm
peeeko said | September 21st 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
I would not say australia is different to many other nations in this regard. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in preferring a local game. The Americans love their NFL, Canadians love their ice hockey, skandos love their handball, cadel Evans received plenty of coverage when he won the tdf and rightly so