Watching sport is a popular pastime.
A 2015 study found 60 per cent of Americans identified as being a sports enthusiast. In 2016 approximately five million people celebrated the Chicago Cubs win by marching through the streets.
In New Zealand around 1.7 million people watch rugby on TV. The All Blacks pull the biggest audience and are “watched by nearly 1.34 million New Zealanders (34.3%) slightly ahead of the Rugby World Cup (RWC) watched by 1.26 million New Zealanders (32.4%)”.
There are many reasons why we watch rugby, and surprisingly they’re not actually all about winning. A survey conducted in 2014 with 2255 respondents showed that most people watched sport due to the skill involved (63%), rivalry between teams (57%), teamwork (55%), athleticism (54%), strategy (51%), competition between individual players (42%), showing team pride (41%), social aspects – watching with friends (38%) – family traditions of watching (31%), speed of play (31%), camaraderie with others (28%) and other (28%).
Although the study was conducted in the USA, I don’t see why the results would change in a New Zealand context.
Many of us All Blacks fans are beneficiaries of the “cathartic healing” of sports fandom – supporting a team makes us feel better about our own lives. There’s a sense of bonding and “shared purpose”, which can be seen at the games, in pubs and on Facebook groups.
When the All Blacks win not only do we get bragging rights but it contributes to our sense of national identity, which has been intrinsically tied to rugby since the 1905 Originals tour. But unfortunately studies also show that losses can lead to “reckless driving, heart attacks and domestic violence”. In 2010 the NZ Police felt it necessary to prepare for the possibility of an All Blacks loss in the 2011 Rugby World Cup in their risk management preparations and did “extensive research into the effects of test matches on crime rates”.
(AAP Image/Glenn Hunt)
So what is fan fanaticism? According to the research, it includes three elements.
Sociological
The relationship between sport and society. Sport, primarily rugby, put New Zealand on the map. The prowess of the national team and their record of success has provided a platform for pride.
Psychological
Our self-esteem can benefit “from simple associations with successful others”. In addition, our need to belong is also satisfied through the camaraderie with those who support the same team.
According to Eric Simons, author of The Secret Lives of Sports Fans: The Science of Sports Obsession, “Fans get so much from identifying with a team, in ways even players don’t”, explaining that “athletes can be mercenaries, but the fan is permanent”.
However, an ugly side of the psychological aspect of fandom is what we saw transpire on the Gold Coast after the Wallabies loss to the Pumas – the concept that “you can get away with things as a fan in a crowd you’d never dream of trying in normal society”.
Physiological
A study in 1998 by Professor Paul Bernhardt showed that male spectators “experience the same testosterone surges as the players themselves – an increase of about 20 per cent by fans of winning teams, and a similar decrease in losing fans”. However it’s the minor neurons that are the cause of “the profound sense of vicarious connection to athletes”, which basically means our tendency to connect to a team or a certain player mean that their losses or wins become ours.
(David Jones/PA Images via Getty Images)
Professor Robert Cialdini coined the term BIRG (basking in reflected glory) to describe the pride fans feel when their team wins. I have certainly felt my share of BIRGing after an All Blacks match – that feeling you get that the universe is in alignment and that we’re on track for the Rugby World Cup.
It’s often thought that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they react to a loss, but I think it’s equally true for winning, and while I’ll fully admit some New Zealand fans come across as arrogant winners, this is not a Kiwi-only phenomenon. I think people need to take off their accusatory glasses and actually look at fans in their own backyards to see if they fit that description too.
Alternatively, CORFing (cutting off reflected failure), a term coined by researchers Charles Snyder, Maryanne Lassergard and Carol Ford, explains the tendency for fans “to distance themselves from their team after a defeat”. This is most visibly seen in those who leave a game halfway through when their team looks like they’re losing.
However, for most fans, regardless of their nationality or allegiance, it’s confirmation bias (also known as cognitive bias) which affects them most. Confirmation bias results in fans explaining defeats “by blaming outside factors, such as referees”. And it’s this phenomenon I’ve been reading in the comments at the end of New Zealand Herald or Stuff articles or on posts on many rugby Facebook groups.
To me this is the ugliest side of fandom and one I believe comes from either plastic fandom, those too young to have experienced the dark years or perhaps just those who are particularly poor sports.
I guess it’s only human nature to want to blame something or someone. It’s a common trait in many people, but NZ rugby fans are certainly not alone when it comes to doing this. But turning on a player after one poor performance is an incredibly fickle way to support a team. The blame game belongs on a playground, not in professional sport.
(AAP Image/David Moir)
When coaches start blaming referees for a loss, what kind of example are they setting? Basically they’re avoiding responsibility and disrespecting the opposition.
Michael Cheika is a coach who regularly plays the blame game; Steve Hansen is not. After his infamous “cheats” outburst in the 2017 loss to England, Brett Harris described Cheika’s “incandescent rage against the refereeing” as “an unpleasant, but recurring, feature of the game”.
Then this year, after the Wallabies loss to Ireland in the first test, Cheika invited the referees to the post-match media conference to “explain themselves to the media”.
Compare that to Hansen’s attitude. When asked about Nigel Owens not hearing his assistant referee saying two Boks players were offside, Hansen replied, “There’s no point me bitching about that. The game’s about taking your opportunities and making sure the opposition don’t and we didn’t do that tonight”. The refreshing lack of blame is setting a much better example.
Fans blaming players also defies logic. There are 23 players in a match-day rugby team. Each and every one of those players has a job to do, whether it be kicking goals, scoring tries or making tackles. The expectation that each of those 23 players is going to play without making a mistake is ridiculous. How many of us never make a mistake in our jobs?
(Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
I know they’re paid well for the job they’re employed to do, but that really is a moot point. The actual point is: everybody has an off day every so often. Another point it: they’re not robots; they’re human, and sometimes their confidence is shaky or their nerves get the better of them.
Beauden Barrett has come under more than his fair share of criticism since last week’s game, and I think without the hoard of keyboard warriors telling him he realises he had an off night. Sean Fitzpatrick once said that All Blacks remember losses more than wins, and I think that will be the case with the Westpac Stadium loss. But was Barrett’s kicking the only thing that cost the match? Because I saw a lot of mishandling and a lot of poor decision making, and not all of that can be placed on Barrett’s shoulders.
As Avan Lee, chief executive of the Hurricanes, says, “You get a lot of plaudits when things go well but, as soon as they don’t, it’s pretty tough”. Considering he’s been the back-to-back World Rugby player of the year, Lee added “it’s remarkable how Barrett has somehow fashioned a reputation as unreliable and disinterested”.
I’ve seen him called “useless”, “beyond poor” and the “worst AB kicker of all time”. I’ve also read people once again blaming him for losing the second test against the British and Irisih Lions, with no acknowledgement of the red-card incident. So in four days he went from hero to zero because he had a poor night with the boot. The four tries he scored against the Wallabies at Eden Park have disappeared into the dark recesses of some fans’ minds.
When a team loses, the coaching staff and players share the blame (as opposed to blaming) and have to live with the result. Sometimes a team just loses. Sometimes the opposition plays out of their skin. Sometimes things just don’t click into place. But whatever is behind the loss, any loss, the fact of the matter is that we’re supposed to be ‘supporters’ – in other words, we’re meant to support our team. And support shouldn’t rely on the score
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
It's good if they don't. This piece was based on what I'd been reading on FB rugby groups - supposedly ABs fans.
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
I agree.
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
I know, it was immense eh. The best game of rugby I've seen in ages.
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
I was actually meaning the posts I've seen on FB groups. And I have nothing against post-match dissection and debate. But it's character assassinations that I think are wrong.
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
Yes, it must be easier. But staying on top is difficult. What that old adage, it's easier to get to the top than stay there...
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
Good point. I don't remember that post-match conference and I can't seem to find it. What I have found is an article quoting Hansen as saying "It's time you start developing your players in your own country." Is that a complaint or an observation? And has it come to bear fruit with the team now? And that's 6 years ago, no doubt Hansen has matured a bit in his post-match media conferences since then. For example those following the BILs second and third tests.
Zakaia Cvitanovich
Roar Pro
My brother had been quite a 'mouthy' soccer player, we loved reminding him about that when he became a ref! You're right about it being easier when your team wins a lot... in a way. But I'm also a NZ cricket supporter... It's almost easier to support them because of the lower expectations. It's not a national disaster when we lose the cricket.
Baz
Guest
I don't think most Australian Rugby supporters judge their national team on an individual result. It is fair however that our continued interest in our national team (not support) is a result of the teams performance over many years. We start to lose interest when our national team plays the game poorly and without heart irrespective of the result. Australian Rugby supporters are switching off because there are more rewarding and entertaining products available. We are Australians and we are patriotic sports nuts. It is a big part of our national ethos. The Lukhan Tui incident was ugly and can not be condoned. How ever that spectator displayed the kind of passion for the jumper and Australia that I wish Lukhan would demonstrate on the field. To be clear we are not judging our team on an individual game. We are judging the Wallabies on performance and heart over an extended period.
Barney
Roar Rookie
Interesting points. It would seem that the kind of fan being written about is someone a little more than the casually disinterested type who while enjoying the highs are probably not that affected by the lows. So the fan discussed is the more educated passionate follower type? With this type, as someone above mentioned, it really is all to do with expectations (like anything in life). Granted there are some who have completely unrealistic ones - a Georgian fan who thinks they could win the WC - one could presume the other 90?% are relatively rational. So where does this expectation come from? And is this fan's reaction really based on result or performance? The first question is probably very complex. One answer could be that the fan perceives the team as having a certain peak (potential) based on personnel. Another fan could demand that the sum be greater than the parts because of the history and other intangibles. Another could be that the team needs to play to a certain style that aligns with the cultural values of the club/ country etc This means this fan could never be satisfied because of the general strategic approach even if there were winning results. And without doubt there are many other reasons that means ultimately, results are never an open and shut case for fan satisfaction. Therefore the second question is really the relevant one. I think fans are really interested in performance and all the variables that lead up to the performance. If these are perceived to be satisfactory, they can be relied on for solid support. If they are not then winning results can at most paper over the cracks. Of course how to deliver a performance that satisfies as much of the fan base as possible is also, it seems, not so easy due to the diverse nature of their expectations. So in short and in agreement with others here, fans ultimately don't based their support on results but really around the performance, win or lose, It shouldn't be any other way.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Also, I don't really care what country you were born in or choose to support. If you didn't enjoy the heroics that SA brought to that match.. well you should probably get a doctor to check your pulse. Either that or go watch 90 minutes of soccer for a nil all draw.
Ralph
Roar Guru
"plastic fandom" Top phrase right there, well done.
Dontcallmeshirley
Guest
I don't think that's entirely fair. A few fans can be a bit painfull but not "most".
Tuc Du Nard
Guest
Agree re it being easier to coach a winning team because it's really simple to point to lessons etc ,not possible loss of his job. Cheika wears his heart on his sleeve. That's just him and RA knew that when they hired him. The Wallabies are not that far behind despite all the death riding here.
Cliff Bishkek
Roar Rookie
Irrespective of wins or losses, fans do have the right to question the capabilities of both coaches and players. Now if the team is winning or playing relatively competitive rugby and exhibiting good rugby through skills and play, etc., then with a loss there is no need for the criticism of the players or the coaches. There can be however, sensible debate and criticism of certain aspects of the game. In these instances there should be no character assassinations. But under the current status of the Wallabies and SR and rugby in Australia, the losses are becoming bad with all players exhibiting poor skills, poor form and a complete lack of rugby nous. And as for skills that is the responsibility of players to rectify, they are professionals. The majority of the other incompetent status of the Wallabies and Rugby in Australia is doe to inept coaching (clearly displayed for many years - since Jones, and rugby administration all the way up to RA. You will find that the majority of posters on the Roar are complaining because of there seemingly being no progress or even signs of progress; rather a going backwards. In this instance I reserve the right to make my comments on Cheika as a Clown, irrespective of him possibly being a great bloke who is passionate, or idiotic in his selections, etc. The same with my criticism of the rugby administraiton in Australia. As for referees, that is a no no! One can question and wonder why on decisions but complete dispargement of the referee is a definite no. Cheika makes "blame" mistake. Good teams take the referee out of the equation. So reactions by fans, coaches and others in all countries is generally determined by the type of rugby or the exhibition of the rugby their team plays.
Etepeus
Roar Rookie
Not sure Hansens personality will ever be as volatile as Cheikas, but do agree it is easier to take a loss when it's the exception rather than the norm. I was very disappointed with ABs loss to SA because of how we played which was not to our potential, too many errors, but was very happy for SA as they played with maximum effort and got the win they deserved.
Etepeus
Roar Rookie
Alot comes down to expectation. Kiwis expect the ABs to win and win with style while we expect the Black Caps to play there best and win when they can. The Black Cap wins are often more satisfying when not expected. As for losing to SA or Australia this comes down to the difference in the relationships of the countries, with SA our relationship is with rugby and the fierce rivalry created across many years where as with Australia who ever enjoys losing to big brother, our countries over many things are alot closer than NZ will ever be to SA. It's just more painful losing to Australia especially over the last 10-15 years as the expectation is that the ABs will win. I as 1 kiwi am so disappointed with the state of rugby in Aus from SR to Wallabies, I want the ABs to win but not easily, I also support the Wallabies playing anyone but the ABs as I support the Rebels except when playing Crusaders.
Rugbyfan101
Guest
Most of you dont
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
Well researched article, but I think the conclusion that support shouldn’t rely on the result, needs to be differentiated from a team that persistently underperforms. It is pretty hard for fans to show up and part with substantial amounts of cash week in and week out, when the team they support can’t get its act together. On the flip side, if your team plays well but is beaten by an opposition that you know is just better, that is every reason to be proud of them. How the Wallabies played in Dunedin last year is a good example of that, even though they were pipped at the post. I would also add that it is pretty hard for Hanson to be seen regularily demonstrating the the same sort of poor sportsmanship as Cheika, because the All Blacks usually win. What sticks in mind for me though, was how Hanson reacted to the draw in Bledisloe 3 in 2012, complaining about how Australia selected a New Zealand born goal kicker, Mike Harris. Perhaps if he didn’t have the security of a World Cup and unpteen other trophies tucked under his arm, Hanson might react differently to losses.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
Nicely written mate and absolutely spot on. I’ll be honest and admit that I’ve been less than stellar in my reactions to a loss in the past but after taking up refereeing about 10 years ago I do see things a bit differently. I really like that sentence “sometimes teams just lose”. The only point I would say is that it’s a lot easier to have this attitude when your team does t lose much. When your team has a consistent record of poor play leading to a series of losses and your world standing drops ever lower, your team selections are confusing and not helping things change, your tactics appear not to work but don’t change, your attack is confusing and unsuccessful, your defence leaks like a sieve and the coaches put blame on the players not having enough enthusiasm then I think it’s fair for the supporters to start questioning things
Harry Jones
Expert
Good piece. My best tennis coach always told me there were two contests in every match: the score, and who would be the classiest.