How and why rugby lost me

Rugby Union "Australia aside" is still one of the fastest growing sports worldwide include in that 7s and we have an appealing flagship sport which picks up swing voters all over the globe. I rarely watch rugby league these days at the top level it is a sterile monotonus trudge through boredom. This is why league worldwide has never had a true world cup and if it hasn't happened by now it never will. Rugby union has and always will have greater appeal worldwide and will continue to grow. As for league at NRL level no one in the greater sporting world really cares about the NRl or what aussie supporters think if it , dying code.

The Rugby last weekend was awesome. Im not seeing a decline in quality or fan interest so perhaps if you started watching again you would find it a great game to watch. Remember that in the 200 plus countries that follow and play rugby only one has competition from NRL and AFL. I do believe that expansion is on the cards and hopefully the northern and southern hemispheres agree on having the same seasons and then we will move to a promotion and relegation battle competition.

Sorry but this is drivel. I live in the UK and what you have said is rubbish – football is king up here but rugby is a very big sport too, unless you live in places like Liverpool, Manchester etc which are all football mad. Rugby is known throughout, the internationals better attended than any other international sport (including football). The class rah rah thing is a factor in schools in the south east, Edinburgh etc, but this is balanced out by places such as the west of England, where rugby is bigger than football, Ireland, where rugby has grown hugely since 200,& france, where it has a working class base. If anything the class thing with rugby is more prouned in Sydney than anywhere else. 6nation drudge fest aside, rugby has been brilliant so far in the Super Rugby season as it was in World Cup. The 6nations was also dire last season, up until the last game, when all the teams decided to cut loose and play rugby properly. Rugby needs some tweaks, such as stopping the clock at scrum resets, a few breakdown issues, but overall it is in rude health. It is hard to see if you live in NSW and Qld but League just doesn’t register at all. The arrogance of League is also quite odd considering its position in the pecking order of global sports. The Rugby mantra “game they play in heaven” is tongue in cheek, but League’s the “greatest game” etc is said with compete seriousness. It is embarrassing.

Rugby union is based on the concept of how to fight and win a battle. You fix the enemy in position with the forwards and outflank them with the backs thereby winning the battle. Traditionally British officers played it for this reason and teach other team based lessons, relying on your mates etc all important when your on campaign. This is essentially how the game spread around the world as the British empire grew. My point is it's a game developed for a purpose which has now changed to entertainment and as such the game also needs to change. The game is dying in Australia as other spots that have adapted appeal more to the publics tastes etc. it's a minority sport in South Africa where soccer is king and in New Zealand league is gaining in popularity. The northern hemisphere is different, the game mainly supported by the upper classes but still a minority sport. I like Union and want to see it do well but it's too boring in its current form and the competition super rugby is poor. Change is needed

Wow - I thought I was the only one left who enjoyed those days of stud marks and gritty power! The game has changed no doubt but it's still rugby - give your testicles a slap and get back on the wagon!

Let there be no further irritation, and may the gods give my words wings, so that peace settles on the Land of Roar.

CS, I certainly find your theoretical discussion irritating. Not because it's wrong, because I agree with your points, but because one employer doing this in isolation just removes them self from the race to secure decent candidates. The reality is you have to pay what your competitors are paying, if you are going after the same type of people. No ifs and buts.

Midfielder, it is an interesting point. The game is controlled by a pay TV operator. How many rugby journalists in Australia are truly willing to say what they think. Or do they have one eye on where there pay packets come from.

Bakkies, The fact that Papworth went to league is irrelevant to current discussions. Back in the 80s union was amateur, & league was professional. If you wanted to make money from sport, you transferred from union to league. So, so, so, so many Wallabies did this. Many of them outstanding human beings.

I just love how the proponents of NRC like to use BBL as a reference point. Of course, human nature is consistently irrational therefore anything is possible I guess.....

Agree, you should benchmark against the closest comparable operations (not external variance) and over a rolling average, but I'd also caution that the value will ever be found out. You should have a comparable test like rugby, i.e., you should be able to try out different execs under comparable conditions so you can see who makes the biggest difference to the performance of the team (firm). To measure the impact, you'd have to give each exec a few years in the job in sequence in a more or less stable economic environment. As we know with rugby, even under these conditions there would be some pretty rough justice.But once you also accept that these conditions are themselves impossible, since the environment is constantly changing, and the fact that the exact definition of each job and its comparisons are nowhere near as well-defined as a position in a rugby team, then the whole thing presents as hopeless. Yet somehow, that's what you're trying to achieve.

Now you guys are making some sense.....

Hi Middie, Always enjoy exchanging thoughts with you. Apart from the occasional blitz here or there, I too am trying to reduce my comments because we all seem to rehash the same stuff regularly. Compared to what I used to write, I've cut back considerably.

adapt to changing times? means what exactly Parra, despite the issues that rugby has , it is growing around the world.

I would cut the number of players by 2 and then watch the game change overnight. Forget the scrum pass out wide as there is now space. Simplify the rules and that's it. There is one problem though, it's the northern hemisphere's reluctance to change the rules the so called purists. Also any change to speed up the game leads to rugby league. Pity, having played and supported Union I'd still like it to do well. if you don't change, adapt to changing times you eventually die.

cs - exactly re my point on comparison. Qantus compared to other airlines, everyone's profit went up when oil went down, and profit dropped when it went up. Sure there may be luck invloved any one year they outperform, hence 5 year rolling performance benchmarks. You have to outperform and do it consistently, one off's won't get you there. Never be accepted because all the execs who actually make little difference will be found out. Also there are winners and losers, you actually have to be better. That is far too scary for them.

Agree. Minimal, but not so they're embarrassed next to their peers, and cross your fingers and hope the qualities you thought you recognized are real, while accepting that there's likely to be a fair bit of waste in the bargain. One of the problems with paying a lot is that the higher you go the more likely they'll want to bring in more execs. Agree re benchmarks, but accepting that you'll probably still end up 'paying for luck' whatever you do. Heard the Qantas guy the other day trying to explain that the boost in returns had little to do with lower oil prices, which made me remember when he used to explain the drop in returns because of higher oil prices. Pretty funny.

So you don't read rugby league blogs, but can recall a comment I made on a 'rugby league blog'. Maybe you're just a mind reader? But hey, I get it. You are a disgruntled Shute Shield man. I played subbies and was treated like dog shite by your bretheren for years. So much for grass roots rugby. Regarding Vichy the point I have made very plainly, and it is a valid point, is that Vichy was part of a despised Nazi regime. If they supported rugby union, then that doesn't help rugby union going (the friend of my enemy is my enemy). So no surprises that the heyday of French rugby league was in the 1950s and 1960s. Well after WW11 finished. Therefore it is ludicrous to blame the demise of French rugby league, which occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, on a regime which was in power the 1940s. Regarding Mussollini, to quote wiki "Mussolini found rugby union inconveniently resistant to authority and dropped the sport, and for Fascist purposes turned to volata, a malleable kind of handball."

cs - pay execs minimal salary. Most of their remuneration is based on a 5 year rolling performance against competitors by whatever the company values or weighted (i.e. profit, market share etc). Note compared to competitors. In the right conditions all banks earnings go up, the executives who go up the most made the difference. Also works during crisis ie. 2007 when all the banks profits dropped who dropped the least. What is annoying with most bonus schemes they are linked to share price / profit independent of competitors so it could be macro factors and nothing to do with the execs. Make them measurable against the competitors and you get a better idea of who is performing.