Australian rugby is in the doldrums. As evidence, you only need to look at the level of excitement generated by beating the 10th-ranked side in the world.
Watching Australian rugby in the last 10 years has been much like watching a car crash in super-super slow mo. Why are we so rubbish now?
There are a number of theories, but the answer must surely be intrinsic.
Our playing roster is weak, and commercially in Australia, rugby is weak as well. The two are obviously linked.
If there is more cash to splash around, the game in Australia will clearly benefit within its playing roster.
In April, the ARU announced a loss of more than $8 million. They cited diluted broadcasting revenue due to a strong Australian dollar as a cause.
Maybe, but there was also no mention of the advantages of increased overseas purchasing power either. But that’s irrelevant.
In my opinion, this is a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Australian rugby league has no such issue, as most of their broadcasting revenue is derived locally from the NRL.
I would argue that a healthy game should profit regardless of currency movements. Equally, sponsorships and gate receipts contribute more than broadcasting revenue anyway.
Attendances at Wallaby and Super Rugby matches show the real problem – the game is on the nose with the average Joe.
The first Bledisloe Test this year, which you would have to say is one of the marquee rugby events in the world each year, attracted less than 70,000 spectators. There were more than 12,000 seats that remained unfilled.
Not so long ago I was part of a world record 109,874 spectators watching a gem of a game at the same stadium (albeit unmodified from its Olympic dimensions) – but I would counter that if there were 130,000 tickets to sell, they would have sold without a problem on that day.
The last live match I went to was the Waratahs vs Hurricanes last year, which attracted a bumper crowd of around 13,000 (sarcasm in case it wasn’t noted).
New Zealand and South Africa happen to wield more power and derive more income from SANZAR broadcasting deals due to their third-tier tournaments, the NPC and the Currie Cup.
Unfortunately, when a foundation team is pulling the kinds of figures the Waratahs have been managing, Australia is not in a position to successfully stage a third-tier tournament.
New Zealand and South Africa are extremely tribal and their provincial clashes generate interest in their respective markets. Ask a random Sydneysider, though, who the Force and Rebels are, and they won’t know.
They certainly won’t care about an even lower tournament. Third-tier tournaments are not the answer for Australia. For the moment.
Gordon Ramsay, love him or hate him, knows a few things about successful enterprises. His mantra is only to listen to the people who complain about his products and services, because it’s these people who can offer the best insight into how to improve.
Not the backslappers. Using this mantra, the people to listen to would be people who have chosen to adopt one of the competitor codes – NRL, AFL and A-League.
There would of course be large segments within each of these codes who are diehard and would never change, but there would also be a large pool of ‘swinging voters’ who could be convinced to start watching or playing again.
Just imagine snaring 10 percent of rugby league’s playing pool of 1.43 million participants – this would swell Australian rugby union’s playing pool of 323,000 by 44 percent!
And with rugby league, you are talking about people located geographically in the same general locations, with very similar base skill sets (catching, passing, kicking, tackling). They are the easiest ones to convert.
By increasing interest in the game, this will of course translate into higher gate receipts, higher sponsorships, and greater television audiences, giving the ARU more leverage when negotiating the splits in SANZAR broadcast deals.
Higher income equals more profit, meaning more money to distribute to grassroots, or talented, high profile Israel Folau types.
So an important question is then: What are the parts of the game that irk the people who are tuning into the other codes?
The repeating themes I hear from disgruntled people are the constant reliance on penalty goals, the constant kicking in general play, the confusing rules around the scrum and the breakdown, and the constant scrum resets.
I may be a diehard rugby fan, but I’d agree with all of these too.
I don’t have all the answers, but I could put forward a few ideas that are worth looking at, because we can either modify the game to make it more watchable for a bigger audience, or we can continue with traditional rules and remain on the fringes.
Many people are in favour of reducing the value of penalty goals. I am one of these people. Think of this from a mathematical perspective.
On average, kickers these days can probably knock over around 80 percent of what is on offer, from most parts of the opposition half.
Using some high school maths, this equates to an average expected return of 0.8 x 3 = 2.4 points for every penalty attempt.
The alternative is to take a tap or kick for touch for the attacking lineout. To score a try is worth about 6.6 points (keep in mind not all conversions are kicked). If you supposed that your team had a 1 in 3 chance of scoring a try from the ensuing play (which is very, very generous indeed), you’d still come up with 0.33 x 6.6 = an expected return of 2.2 points.
Of course you take the penalty shot. Keep in mind I used a 1 in 3 assumption of scoring a try (tell him he’s dreamin’).
You could reduce the penalty to two points, or one. You could make a try worth six. Whatever. I am just surprised that some variant of this change hasn’t occurred yet, because nobody in the entire world, even the English, would rave about games where 10-plus penalty goals are kicked.
People want to see the ball in play, and they want tries scored. In rugby league, goals are mainly used to break deadlocks. I dare say they have it right.
People rightly argue that by devaluing penalty goals, it would just encourage players to infringe more, and this appears to be the case from early trials.
Equally, it has been argued players would not increase their infringements if referees were more liberal with yellow cards.
You could also introduce other systems to deter deliberate infringements. Basketball may be able to offer a blueprint: in basketball, a team is allowed a certain number of fouls per time period. Past this, any further fouls result in an immediate free-throw attempt, regardless of where on the court the foul occurred.
Individuals players are also allowed a certain quota, and past that they are immediately ‘fouled out’, meaning they can no longer take part in the game (they are allowed a replacement).
The TMO could be in charge of keeping track of these numbers and alerting the referee when a team or player has reached their quota.
The TMOs don’t do much else so they may as well make themselves useful.
Scrum resets. A feature of the game I would like to see shelved permanently is the ability to reset a scrum once you have been awarded a penalty or free kick from the previous scrum.
I just don’t get it. It encourages further boring scrum resets, and eventually yellow cards for nothing more than being the second best front row on the paddock.
Don’t get me wrong, I value having a contest at the set piece, and I’m not suggesting we move to a league-style scrum (did anyone else notice Anthony Minichiello packing down in the second row in the NRL grand final?).
But unless we cater to the viewing public, we’re just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
The general population don’t understand the intricacies of scrums and don’t want to watch five consecutive minutes of fat blokes face planting.
On a related note, I can’t stand seeing scrums reset when the ball is at the number eight’s feet, and the scrum collapses. Just get the ball out and continue playing. Common sense, people.
I would also argue that on top of rule changes, rugby should think about increasing accessibility of their matches.
Currently Wallabies matches are on free-to-air, which should be applauded. But rugby needs to appeal to the masses, and in my opinion, Super Rugby needs to be on regular TV, in much the same way that I can come home on a Friday night and watch the staple league match (and watch 2 more games on a Sunday).
Maybe in the short term this may not be lucrative but by exposing a franchise like the Brumbies or Reds to the same kind of grassroots supporters that the NRL courts, it can only be a good thing.
I’m not party to the mechanics of TV deals but the ARU and SANZAR are at a major disadvantage on this point.
Should the rest of the rugby world care about Australian rugby’s woes? There are certainly plenty of people in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South Africa enjoying Australia’s demise.
However, it would be my opinion that it is in the interests of the other SANZAR states at the very least to ensure that Australian Rugby remains viable.
We are an important Tier 1 nation. A strength of the Six Nations is that at least four teams could win it.
Imagine if The Rugby Championship was just perennially decided by New Zealand or South Africa.
Also, imagine that a marquee trophy like the Bledisloe continued to be the boring, foregone conclusion that it currently is. It’s time for the game to evolve to cater for consumer interests.
michael gardiner
Guest
the main problem with RU in Australia is I believe that this slow stop start game is played in a country that has two very fast football codes RL and AFL that it has to compete with. Example in AFL there is open non- stop ball playing for 80% of the game, in NRL it is 75% of the time in RU it is a dismal 25% of the time. Lets face it RU is boring. I played both RU and RL in the 50s at a private school, the vast majority of boys did not want to play RU but because RU in them days was regarded as a class game, we were made to play it, I believe many people still regard schools that play RU better than those that play RL, just look at the number of private schools that play RU and will not allow RL to be played, yes its true in the 21st century there is decrimination from the privledged, michael
Garth Knudsen
Guest
Australia MUST introduce a comprehensive development player program this includes the introduction of strong state and national competitions Australians for Australian rugby Stop reliance on foreign players who undoubtedly care more for money than country
Bakkies
Guest
The numbers for touch included?
In Brief
Guest
Where did you get 1.43 million rugby league particpants? The figure sounds as dodgy.
Bakkies
Guest
The ARU need to look at Ireland and see what they are doing right to organically grow the game. - Clubs are teaming with kids. My club has around 20 to 30 kids registered in each minis grade from under 6 to under 12. These kids with their subs are propping up Senior Rugby in my club. From what I read clubs in Canberra pay a significant fee to Brumbies Rugby to register each season. With more subs coming in the fee wouldn't be an issue. - England and Ireland have removed competitive Rugby from under 6s to under 12s (England have successfully trialled under 6s to under 10s, now looking at implement for under 11s and under 12s) to focus on smaller teams and participation rather then winning trophies and picking the strongest side. There is more focus on developing skills, technique and improving coaches rather then sticking the big kids in the centres to help the team win a trophy while the rest ride the pine. Doing this will suit new growth areas in Australia particularly to help them fulfil matches and encourage new players to join. The new kids will pick the game up better rather then get thrown under a bus in a comp match. - As a result of no competitions, festivals have become a big thing for clubs to host or to travel too and with the younger kids playing on smaller pitches you can have more then one game of Rugby on a pitch at the same time. I travelled to a festival last year and there must have been 30 teams there that day. My team played 5 matches that day. Kids also get used to the travel aspect of playing Rugby. - Some clubs are able to bring two or even three teams in each age group to away match days. They also get to play against other clubs that are invited up. They treat it as a day out so money is spent in the club and outside afterwards in the local area. - Studies have been conducted on what is the best way for kids to learn and doing to much structural work/drills is not the best way to keep them interested. - Munster have €7 terrace tickets for kids for the low profile matches. These are the next generation of supporters and it's probably cheaper here to bring the kids to the Rugby then the cinema. They are also breathing fresh air too. In the early days of pro Rugby in Australia school kids were able to get in free but I can understand the need to charge. $10 for kids and $18 for their parents is a fair price. The English clubs for their big stadium club games have used the Stade Francais model of charging €5 a ticket to fill up the cheap seats. That is a sensible model if you want to get people in to the games and to encourage them to come back. Do the Waratahs do this for their ANZ Stadium matches as they are struggling to get over 40,000 for those games? - Provincial Rugby was restricted to pay tv for a while (former Magners League was on Setanta) but that didn't stop the awareness of the players in the public eye. The players make regular tv appearances rather then the odd commercial.
Midnight.mangler
Guest
Well as a Saffer supporter I see the Wallabies as our Southern Hemisphere cousins. It's in all our (SANZAR) interests for Aussie rugby to be strong. I have enjoyed our rivalry who the Aussies too and I know they I'll come good. So - not all Saffas want to revel in a weak Wallabies side. You're generalizing a bit there mate. We in the SH have to stick together to make sure our rugby collectively remains strong. Whether we like to admit it or not, our respective national attributes when playing against each other has kept SH rugby there or thereabouts as trendsetters in the world game. It is an ecosystem and we need each other to be strong.
Sean6292
Guest
I remember when the Wallabies prop (I think it was Bill Young) was considered to be worth 3 points a game to the Wallabies. He got the 3 points by milking the interpretation of the scrum rules and by his antics such that refs would award penalties to the Wallabies. What is my point. My point is, that it is the stuff of scrums. When it works for you - great. When it works against you - not so great. Scrums are a part of rugby. They always have been. And the stuff of scrums has always been a part of rugby. What it boils down to, is you have to have a good forward pack that can scrummage. You have to be able to take whats given to you and give it back with interest if you can. If you can't, it isn't nice and, well, tough luck. That's rugby. Now a brief look at the Wallabies scrum for this year alone (2013) and you see it getting smashed by the Lions, the All Blacks, the SpringBoks and even the Argentinians were able to tear it apart at different times. That's just this year so far. What does that tell you about the Wallabies scrum??? IMO, it is not a problem with the rules. It is not a problem with the refs. There is not a conspiracy against the Wallabies scrum. What it is? Well, IMO the Wallabies scrum is not fully up to the job. Now you can give me all your arguments about front rows and props pulling all their tricks. But that has always been the case and, IMO, I hope it continues to be a part of rugby. When a team runs out to play another at test level, there should be no surprises about what goes on. So stop blaming the rules, stop blaming the refs and get on with playing the game. As for all the stuff about getting rugby onto free to air tv - that would have to be good for the game. No argument. You can only grow the game by promoting and developing it. But please, stop all this endless banter about changing this rule or changing that rule thinking it will fix what is wrong with Australian rugby. It won't.
RobC
Guest
I like watching the scrums, for the technique required to master it and its crucial role in winning games. Every win and loss by WBs this year correlates with the quality of our scrum. imo Resets, when they do happen, are part of the game. Scrums are a dramatic contest and show of raw team power. It is not just a way to restart play, which can be easily confused by RL watchers. This is not easily appreciated, just like the NFL plays. Whilst the pack is resetting, Why do they show people milling around, picking their noses etc? Show a detailed analysis of the last phase+, or the last scrum itself. They should do the same thing during injury time. This is the perfect time to share the great work done by players - not just showing replays of line breaks and touchdowns. NFL players also take a long time to setup their scrimmage, so the broadcaster takes the opportunity to breakdown the complexity, highlight plan v action, individual player performance or lackof. It will also show in more detail referee problems. My issue with game rules and game management is referring. There are too many things going in a rugby game for one ref and two touchies to catch everything. I'm not surprised they're not making more mistakes. Even a simple game like RL has two on field refs. NFL has seven.
hog
Guest
So True
WhoDis
Roar Rookie
Great, it looks like A-league have succeeded where rugby is failing: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/10/a-league-free-to-air-sbs-fox
kizza
Guest
My solution to the 3 point penalty problem and less eciting rugby because of it is this. When an attacking team is in the enemy half and the defensive team Is makeing cynical penaltys to stop a try, imo the player causing the penalty should be given temporary time off the field untill their team fairly regains posesion. So if mccaw makes a penaly, he must stand off the feild. So for his penalty the attacking team now has the numerical advantage increasing their chance to score a try. Now just say someone else cynicaly infringes they join him on the sideline untill either a try is scored or they get the ball back. 10 min in the bin and yellows should be reserved for dangerous play and extreme circumstances. They can still be shot at goal for 3 points. Having a temporary time out for infringing players makes teams want to foul less, increases chances for trys, rewards fair teams and keeps it all exiting. Anyone agree?
Charcoal
Guest
I agree with you Paul. Rather than trying to promote the flashy backline play, there should be more emphasis on differentiating Union from League, particularly in the contest in set plays. League has no lineouts and their scrums are a joke. They might as well dispense with them altogether as they are meaningless. For example, you correctly point out that in Argentina the strength of the scrum is a major attraction for local supporters and also I might add in the Northern Hemisphere. That doesn't mean that backline play is marginalised. It just adds to Union's overall more interesting competitive structure with League's boring 6 tackle/kick regime. However, I admit that it may be difficult to convert the fringe supporters to appreciate the finer intricacies of the Union game, but it's nonetheless a strategy that needs to be pursued instead of trying to change the game to be more like League.
kunming tiger
Guest
The problem with Rugby Uinon can be summed up in three words " Lack of engagement" that is the lack of engaement with the vast majority of Australians across the country who neither play or follow the game nor do they know anybody that does. Hence their is a lack of interest in a sport which is seen to be overly complex at best completetly inaccessible at worst. Most people don"t understand the sport most kids see little reason to play it and it's lack of visibility on FTA along with Australia's recent run of poor results just compounds it. The perception of Rugby as less than a national pastime and more of a sport for foreign ex pats isn't helping . Unless the code is developed at all levels right across the country and local participation greatly increased that perception won;t change. There is a need fotr a long term plan , suffucient resources and expertise devoted to that plan before the sport gains any real traction. Right now it's a hand to mouth situation. Rugby in this country does not have viable pathways to pro ranks like other sports do it does not offer the same opportunity, earning potential and so on. I don;t see any of the above changing before the end of this decade maybe even the next.
Wozza
Guest
You're a fool if you think SA and NZ care about the game in Australia. Maybe at the highest level but amongst the average punter, who the SARU and NZRU have the strongest allegiance to, they are loving Australia's demise. Most Kiwis just don't like Australians and relish in our failures, while for their part, Saffies begrudge Australia a seat at the high table and long to see us relegated to whipping boy status. One of the most desired routes to a third tier competition, which basically is a must if we are to produce depth and a supply of quality replacements, would be the incorporation of Australian teams into the NPC (ITM CUP) but this will never happen as the the Kiwi public wouldn't stand for it, regardless of the fact that Australia accepts and supports NZ teams in our League, Soccer and Basketball competitions. Benevolence in the sporting arena is a one way street in that regard. What Oz needs to do, in a similar way to what Soccer did about 10 years ago, is have a comprehensive review of the game with a view to installing a third tier competition, pathways for juniors outside the elite private schools, to move towards the teams in this comp and ways to get greater exposure for rugby outside the pay tv market. The ARU is currently a self serving body racked with nepotism while clubland is equally consumed in a self interest so blinding they would rather see the game whither than give an inch of their status. We need a solid blueprint to take the game forward otherwise rugby in Australia is doomed.
Daz
Guest
And here's a radical thought. What's stopping the ARU making rule changes to make our domestic games more competitive with the likes of league and rules? And revert to international rules when we play tests or games of super rugby against other nations? Surely we are masters of our own backyard? What is the IRB going to do to us? Ban us from international competition? Not likely.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
I currently coach both junior league and junior union. Junior union starts straight after league finishes and runs through till December.Most kids prefer union and love the scrum, but I know that for the "special" talent league will win out.The money that League throws at the grassroots, the name players they make available at junior coaching camps and the possible career paths they sell to both player and parents far exceed anything union brings to our country area. The game and it's rules are not the problem, it is the selling of the product in this country. The proof is in the pudding, kids love the game but struggle to identify with heroes playing the game on tele on the weekend .The AFL and NRL know who drives the footy dollar in this country and I can assure you it's not 30 + year old adults. We can talk about as many tiers as you like, until we get more kids playing and talking about the game and their heroes within our game the status quo will continue. Sell the game to enough kids and you can have 10 tiers!
Daz
Guest
CF I can't see the international rugby community making rule changes to help us with our particular problems as much as some changes you suggest might be an improvement. The thing that amazed me during the TRC though is that only our own games were telecast. Why not the AB and Bok games too? Admittedly I'm not privy to the commercial intricacies of broadcast deals but surely the other games would have attracted a far larger viewing audience especially given the large population of kiwis and saffas over here. The ARU supposedly is trying to promote rugby as a "global" game to lure players from other codes but only promote it from a narrow, one nation perspective. Madness. Many aussies I know couldn't be bothered watching the wallabies but would gladly watch the ABs or the Boks play. Perhaps those games might even inspire more kids, otherwise lost to league or rules to grow up to be Wallabies to take on the these overseas teams.
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
Your point about influencing the captains decision makes sense. That's a more coldly calculated decision - not a heat of the moment one. But my point certainly wasn't that 3 points isn't enough of a penalty. Yellow cards would make the situation worse. Imagine if Horwill got a yellow card for picking that ball up on the weekend! I could argue the laws are too open to interpretation. Or too complicated. Or the refs aren't good or consistent enough. But I actually don't want things dumbed down. I LIKE that there is an edge that players like Ritchie can push and a little bit of grey area that players can operate in if they're smart. The punishment options at the moment are (1) short arm penalty, (2) long arm penalty, (3) yellow card or (4) red card. I think I'd like to see an option added between (1) and (2) that was perhaps a short arm penalty but with a march of 10 meters downfield on top of it. It avoids the shot at goal - i.e. it's less than a deliberate foul - but it's also more than you'd get if the opposition had made a simple mistake (e.g. knocked on).
Cam Fay
Guest
Melon, The idea about changing the points is not to influence what is happening in the heat of the moment necessarily - it is all about the decision a captain makes when awarded a penalty. It currently just makes too much sense to take points on offer. However, I am sure all of us have applauded and cheered a decision to kick for touch and press for a try, and conversely, we've all been disappointed by a team on the rampage stopping and taking the easy 3 points. I am certain that by reducing penalties, you'd see more attempts at scoring tries. Also, your logic that 3 points doesn't deter people much - then 2 points definitely won't, hence why the yellow card needs to be utilised more.
Cam Fay
Guest
You think the scrum rules are OK as they stand and won't ever need revising? So you're saying to me that you're happy to see 4-5 scrum resets (which chew up a minute or so each in an 80 minute game), then the ref blows a penalty. The captain then says, "that was so much fun, let's have another scrum". The opposition gets penalised again, and a front rower gets binned. Surely you agree that makes for a lousy spectacle. I agree with getting G&GR vids a wider audience. I learnt more in the section on scrummaging than 10+ years on the paddock (admittedly picking flowers in the backline)