Does anyone else find this story familiar?
In the last three years my ritual for watching Super Rugby had progressively become a process of looking at what matches were coming up on the weekend, choosing an ever declining subset of what might be interesting, setting up the Foxtel box to record those matches, looking at the scores after the games had finished and then realising when it was a 20-plus point drubbing of another Aussie side that I didn’t want to watch any of them.
Seeing Aussie teams fail miserably again and again just isn’t entertainment; it’s torture, and I’m not going to pay anyone for that.
(Photo by Patrick Hamilton/AFP via Getty Images)
What I didn’t really understand given it was so incremental over a long time was that my interest was there but the product I wanted to watch had disappeared.
I honestly love rugby. I’ve been a player. My family have all played. My son plays. My daughter plays sevens and touch. I’ve coached junior teams. I have rugby in my DNA. I’m the kinda sad sod who replays scrums to see how a side is dominating another. I simply find the game fascinating.
But my interest in professional rugby, the supposed pinnacle of the game, had totally gone, and I don’t think I truly understood why. Strangely, Super Rugby AU has provided the answer and the solution all in one.
Simply put, as I’ve got used to Super Rugby AU being about Aussie teams playing other Aussie teams every week, I’ve started watching again. And I mean every game. It means something again.
I know the teams and I know the players. The connection is back.
I’m loving it, and if others are experiencing the same, maybe this points to the model that will work going forward. I just want to see competitive matches where the result is in doubt from the outset. And I want to see players I have come to know develop and be able to follow them at a predictable time every week, just like I watch my favourite series on TV.
By getting rid of the international teams we’ve achieved exactly that. So let’s keep it that way.
If my vote as a rugby punter counts for anything, I want to see Super Rugby AU made permanent. Then absolutely let’s follow this by a mini competition between the best of Australia, best of New Zealand best of South Africa et cetera. That makes perfect, logical sense to me.
The Australian main season matches will be competitive, interesting and compelling viewing, just as they are today. Then only the best teams get to play an international series afterwards. Teams have to earn the right to play internationally, making international rugby rarer, a step up in quality and therefore something of value again.
If Rugby AU wants to add a State of Origin series in there, all the better. I’ll watch that as well.
So perhaps in all the disruption of COVID-19 are the seeds of the long road back for Australian professional rugby. Please, Rugby AU, heed the lessons learnt. Prioritise a compelling rugby product over international broadcast dollars. Put the value back into international rugby by making it rare and a higher level that has to be earnt.
While the transition will undoubtedly hurt in the near term and players who have been paid unsustainable amounts for a long time will move overseas, in the long run it will be better for the sport.
Slarti
Roar Rookie
Correct no lawyer but at least I can use logic. If you can't work out the apparent contradiction then so be it.
nroko
Roar Rookie
I think SR AU missed a trick with no afternoon games. Many games played at night with greasy ball reduces the entertainment factor. Moving forward there needs to be at least 1 afternoon game.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
I agree LED, let's get our house in order. I am sick of the Reaganesque trickle down economics that supposedly support keeping the national team strong above all else.
Hi mate, sadly this is the era of professionalism.
moaman
Roar Guru
Hi Corne, I can relate to all that. Change some of the names and it could have been my story.
LED
Roar Rookie
so helpful. I always need someone to tell me why I like something. Have you failed to notice the contradiction in your response? I apparently like it because theres less matches but its apparently going to get stale very quickly because theres less teams? I'm guessing you're no lawyer.
Slarti
Roar Rookie
That is a minimum at this point, only problem I have then is quality. Now I have no problem with a slow start but quality needs to show a steady increase over time. This is where I don't know if RA actually have the kahoonas to take the steps from grassroots up to set it all up. They seem to be much more interested in the top end of town and the money that goes with it.
Joe King
Guest
What we've seen is that old argument of going down the international SR path to make the Wallabies strong to then win Aussie fans, hasn't worked, and is exactly what has been killing the game here! Super Rugby AU makes rugby enjoyable again. The Super 8 idea will keep the international component super, not a season of it.
Double Agent
Guest
There's no evidence to suggest that the same two teams would top the AU comp year after year.
AndyS
Guest
Good for you! You just keep on in there trying, picking yourself up, and I'm sure you'll be the best you you can be :thumbup: :thumbup:
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
LOL! Well, life and the world are pretty confusing. The difference between you and me is that I am man enough to admit it and that I believe education and facts are the only options to see through the fog a bit.
AndyS
Guest
And there you are again, the only one for whom a fairly obvious point is so far over your head, you couldn't reach it with a step ladder. You must find this world a very confusing place, and you have my sympathy... :crying:
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
All you have done is keep on repeating how the structures look like in the current Heineken Cup, over and over and over again. Pretty pathetic. And you have shown a remarkable stubbornness to understand how much the structure of a competition effect who enters the competition. And when I gave you some real stats to blow your lies out of the water, regarding the top two teams in the Premiership and the Top 14 the last 25 years, you just pretend it did not happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993%E2%80%9394_UEFA_Champions_League The Uefa CL started in 1992 in a small version (something that I think rugby should look at). You can see for yourself if you watch season by season that there is a pretty big difference in which teams enter. It was not until Uefa allowed the bigger nations to enter four teams that things started to stale a bit. You also fail to grasp that economically rugby teams in the SH operates from pretty much the same financial ground, no super-rich super clubs who can buy all the best players and put pressure on the national unions. But nothing new under the sun, just another AB's fan boy who has been brainwashed by the "Kremlin".
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Thanks for that, mate.
Purdo
Roar Rookie
Slarti: that's why I think something like NRC would be a good basis for the Australian comp - 7 or 8 teams representing appropriate areas of Australia to appeal to a national audience.
Hanibal
Roar Rookie
I am not enjoying it one bit. I miss the NZ and RSA sides.
AndyS
Guest
No, you demanded real life stats and I gave them to you. You refuse to believe them, so provide real life stats to prove your position - that Champions League competitions don't favour particular teams from the qualifying competition. Pretty easy, but you seem easily confused. So point to one, just one, where all the teams in the qualifying comp have featured in Champions League as frequently as each other. Or accept that you are speaking out of your fundamental orifice.
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
Ok you've goaded me into it :=) $25m a year from those two, I don't know how much the Tudor watch one is and then there's various smaller revenue streams from overseas. That's probably the wages of the entire All Black squad. If you're interested, this article looks at it in a bit of depth. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11868073
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Oh, I understand your words. Problem is that you seem to fail to understand them yourself. I guess your head is a bit too big. how are you going with that real-world example of a Champions League where all the teams in the qualifying competitions have been equally represented over time? Moving the bar are we? You claimed that the same teams always qualify, now you want me to prove that all teams are equally represented?!? Mein Got, you are truly a dishonest man to the bone. And clearly you can't put one plus one together. Or was it that hard to understand the stats from the Premiership and Top14 the last 14 years? Self-made wannabe administrators/experts like you have one massive flaw, you know absolutely nothing about the outside sporting world (which is proven on a regular basis here at the Roar).
AndyS
Guest
You might read every word, but you clearly understand very few of them. I'm not saying there needs to be six, I am giving you those real world examples you wanted showing that, in a comp that qualifies six teams for CL (Premiership/Top 14), then the same six or so teams finish top year after year. In a comp where it was four (CC), then the same teams dominated those four spots year after year. So if it is only two from each country in some future SH Champions league, then once again it will tend to be the same two year after year and for exactly the same reasons. I can't believe you are struggling so much with the concept, when others are clearly getting it. But never mind...how are you going with that real world example of a Champions League where all the teams in the qualifying competitions have been equally represented over time?