Why modern rugby is in a serious state of decline

Gents rugby has a different context in different countries. It's all noted above and in the whole it's a globally healthy sport. I will add however that rugby was not as fantastic as all the old timers remember it. I went and watched every Sydney test right back to the Papworth days. It was not some running try fest at all but mostly field position kicking and sheepish defence. Yes the memories of Topo's tackle and the ellas ball play were awesom but the fact is the games far more dynamic and fast now. Grab a DVD and watch a test match from the 70s .. You won't believe the rubbish play and how messy the game is. Watch an interstate game and you will probably fall asleep. The biggest issues effecting the game in Australia are competition from other codes, physicallity of the players and I think on the negative, the sanitisation of the sport. It's one thing mums letting their kids play rugby because of the lack of punch ups but if it doesn't get ratings (and everyone likes watching a punch up) the the sport becomes less popular anyway.

gilbank I think you have a point there. we're talking about professional athletes many many times fitter, faster and bigger than pre-professional days. the size of the field hasnt changed and the defence has improved immensely (remember the defence of the wingers in the 'old days'). there is only so much you can do running angles from set plays - thats why we see the AB's are about the best attacking team around - because they attack in broken play better than anyone else. given that then its natural that the kicking game comes more into it - especially as the points awarded for tries as opposed to goals hasnt changed. the question is what to do? rugby league only have 13 on the field and for most of the match its played just one out and up to the line with a kick at the end. and when its not it looks like unstructured basketball or touch footy. do we drop the flankers - that keeps the intergity of the scrum and backline formations and reduces the number of players (apologies to all flankers who would obviosuly say drop a couple of wingers ; ) do we change the points scoring system to encourage more attack - at the expense of turning it into touch footy or basketball? do we cut down on international matches and leave only a few blockbuster games each year so that we dont care so much how you win - just that you do win the important ones? I dont have any answers - but I do know that the game is less appealing to me with every season.

Amature rugby in England remains as strong as ever. The fortunes of the England team have little impact on the heartlands of English Rugby. The popularity of rugby inthis Country was chimeric , a temporary blip , after its success in the 2007 RWC. The over exposure of International Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Tours by the All Blacks here are confined to history, replaced by an annual fixture at Twickers. Paradoxicly the proffessional era has effectively eroded what made rugby what it was , an International Club.

'Interesting piece but what’s your solution?' I'm still trying to work out what the problem is. A 'growing sense of unease' about the game losing its 'heart and soul' - well, there would have been people saying the same thing a hundred years ago when some upstart suggested the game might benefit from a few tries amongst the ubiquitous goals that then accounted for all scoring. 'So what if there is money in it now? Why should things like not booing when someone is taking a kick, or clapping off someone who is injured, or not faking injury be lost to the game?' Those are not instances of rugby suffering a decline in sportsmanship so much as standards in the society rugby operates within slipping and taking rugby down with it. Soccer hooligans are worse now than they were in the 50s or 60s. I used to love going to one day cricket matches until I grew sick of being surrounded by so many boorish fellow Australians. It's endemic and rugby is far from alone in having to deal with it. I'd like to get a bit more basic - unless they do something to fix scrum and breakdown officiating, I will become a far less regular viewer of the game over the next few years. I might even start reading books again, I seem to recall enjoying a few of those in the olden days. In the same way that the financial system recently went under largely due to a lack of trust born of the perception that accountability was optioinal for some priviliged players and the regulatory apparatus too easily ignored or suborned, so with rugby people will eventually decide it's not worth losing the remains of their rug scratching their heads about the ridiculous lottery of rulings. Even if it is all incompetence rather than skulduggery, it reduces confidence in the stewardship of the game. To accept that games may be decided by goals kicked from dud rulings is not old-fashioned 'the umpire is always right' stoicism. It's absurd in this age of professionalism, where the current livelihoods and future earning power of players and coaches and teams rely on performance. You might say it's an even playing field if dud calls are distributed fairly evenly but (a) I think even the potential for fixing that comes with the territory of officiating with such loose boundaries is a price too high to pay, and (b) what if the dud call that balances out the good fortune you had last game happens in minute 79 of a WC final? Rub of the green? I don't have fix-all solutions. I do feel that the change of emphasis this year to allow attacking sides more scope for ball retention is a good thing, but we have gone too far down that road in terms of the scrum and to some extent the ruck and maul too. I am sick of teams being penalised for pulling mauls down. FFS, what should you do, show them the way to the line? Unless one of the defending team has committed an offence which poses a threat to the physical well-being of opposing players then give a collapsed maul a short arm, not a long. If mauls are so dangerous that pulling them down might injure someone badly, they should not be allowed to form in the first place. Same with the scrum. Penalise long arm for dangerous offences only, not for 'incorrect bind' or 'you got up and walked across' which was one of the calls I heard in the last month. What does that mean? If even neutral front rowers in commentary cannot fathom it, it should not be called. Phil Kearns was feeling sorry for sides opposing the Wallabies on several occasions. Basically, it's a test of strength and a contest for possession. If it is clear that one side is dominating the other and the scrum is on wheels, just give (after say three collapses) the dominating side possession (short arm), not the chance to reset and kick a winning goal (long arm). I would even consider supporting long arm pen with no goal kick (attack therefore encouraged) While scrums are perhaps even more important now than they've ever been (esp given that they lock up the pigs for at least one phase in these days of water- tight defences) to allow ten or fifteen minutes of reset scrums and resultant penalty tries is to flirt with scrum fetishism at the expense of other facets of the game. It is a means of restarting the game, not an avenue threough which to bring it to a halt. The Eng-Germany clanger in the soccer WC was a shameful episode for that game. One day a stupid scrum or ruck or maul call will do the same for rugby.

What is Union still alive? aw ok just die a little quiter than so I don't hear about it.

It's actually an excerpt from his book and not a proper article.

This article is completely inane. Not only does it offer no solutions, it also offers no problem. The only information we get is that Chris Laidlaw doesn't like professionalism - no reason is given as to why..

What a load of rubbish. The game is stronger than ever. Next time you get a feeling, try use a toilet. This is the worst piece I have read on the roar to date.

Get over it Chris. If you look globally the pro game has made little or no impact on the social game. In fact it's inspired it. Players in Europe can go about their business without having to do TV ad's, or commercial engagements, and are virtually anonymous. Thier lifestyles have been affected only in that they are much healthier, fitter, stronger and expected to train properly for the game and live clean. But they are still formed and shaped by the amateur game that bred them, and their motives are still rugby based and not just cash. They don't get to the top without being rugby men through and through. At least in the Euro zone. Player numbers are up year on year, revenue is solid. In the southern hemisphere it might not be so clean cut and affluent, but the reality is that you pay that price for having lower populations. Aussie and NZ theatres, cimenas, soccer matches, pop concerts as well as beaches, walking tracks and carparks are less busy too... it's the way it is... ups and downs. Of course in time the geater players will all head north, and the game will follow soccer to some extent, not fully because that niche is filled, but it will take on some of the more commercial aspects. What the pro era has brought is a game that is expanded to all levels of society. Where (Wales and NZ apart) once it was a game only for the wealthy elite, the chosen few, the rural people and university students, now it is a game for every kid and a game where you don't have to be rich to play at a high level. Back in the amature days very few players came through from ordinary families, and in fact one fellow whowas offered a tour for England had to choose between playing and losing his electricians business, house, everything, or staying home and earning money. The reality is that league was formed exactly because ordinary blokes needed to earn a living... not everyone could go to oxford. So stop fretting over the future of rugby... old people still hold the reigns, but at least now the hungry boys can play and eat, and make a future for themselves. It's all good.

Do you really think SA would generate anywhere near as much money without Australia and New Zealand?

Ian Interestingly enough the NSWRU will soon seperate itself from the Waratahs. Waratahs Inc. will pay a licencing fee to the NSWRU and will have an independent board. There will be a NSWRU representative on the new Waratahs Inc. board but essentially it will be its own entity. They are also doing a similar thing with the local Club Comp in Sydney (Shute Shield) by approving the reformation of the Sydney Rugby Union. Hopefully this will open up much more money and resources for the NSWRU to further develop the game throughout the state.

Every stadium in the guiness premiership is over 10 000, averaging at about 13 000. Saracens play out of Wartford roads stadium which is about 20000, London Irish play out of Readings stadium which seats just over 20000 and Lesciter Tigers stadium currently holds 24000 with it being upgrade to hold about 32000. With an average attendance of 13000 over the entire season and growing one can say that the game is in an extremely healthy position. Plus its expected that the next T.V deal will be double the one they got last time.

Yet you ignore France.... Good eye.... San Siro Sell out in Italy,,,,,,,, England STILL is doing good with The GP finals at a sell out at Twickenham....

The demands of the professional game are different from the amateur game and to assume that the structures for the amateur game and indeed ethos is strictly transferable is misguided. In England the professional game represents a very small % of the total registered players and fortunately the control of the professional game is the hands of a group of like minded business men who took the control away from the RFU; these guys understood the demands of professional sport, marketing, business models, welfare of players etc, The RFU and other national RFUs are incapable of running both, through their structures they are not equipped to run both and something has to give, as illustrated through the overemphasis on the elite players to the detriment of the grassroots game in Aus and NZ. Surely there should be more third party investment in the professional game in Aus and NZ which would release more money from the valuable TV contracts for the national sides into the grassroots as happens in England. This investment should meaningful. As an example,why can't a consortium of business men in Canberra take a meaningful share in the Brumbies with ARU still having a golden share. Not only would it bring more finance to the game overall but would reinforce the tribal loyalty to the Brumbies, introduce more business expertise with the ultimate aim of achieving greater success. The professional game is different and is a business to be run by business men. As proven in England the game is growing because the RFU do not run the professional game and can devote more time and energy to the grassroots, retaining the traditional ethos of the amateur game and allow the professional game to row it's own boat.

It happened to football and it's going to happen to rugby eventually. In football, teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany buy all the good players from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, etc, simply because these countries cant compete with Europe financially. Take a look at the World Cup, about 90% of the players in south american teams play their game in Europe. The future is grim for rugby in the Southern Hemisphere.

Chris - you probably don't know the half of it. Within a few short years (prob 5 or 6) the huge salaries and big spending will be a mirage. The networks simply won't have the cash to sustain it - and seeing as they sustain the RFU's - they won't have the money either. While gladiatorial type sports will still be popular - they'll all be doing it all for a hell of a lot less. These things come in waves and the SBW's will soon be haunted by the music to wipeout. Hard to believe maybe but to steal a line from above, it won't happen overnight but it will happen.

Please name some examples of NZ teams being 'graceless' in defeat.

Gallus Why don't you diclose Australia's S14 aggregate crowds over a season. It's something like half-a-million isn't (versus the NRL's 3.5 million)? BTW the NRL games can get between 3 & 4 million on FTA TV each week to the S14's zero. How many S14's games feature in the Top 100 List on Pay TV - did they get any?

Yes, its going down the swanee. 15 players does not suit professionalism. Perhaps you should cut the number of players down to 13...

AB's have a reputation of being gracious winners but NOT gracious losers.