Is league's popularity harming rugby development?

if rugby league was that popular then why is it only played in Oz and the north of England? the RL world cup is a joke made up of Oz, Eng, and all of the other teams are chokkablock with players that either play in the NRL or use their great great grandmother as familial ties to represent another nation when they can't get into the kangaroos side. Union struggles with only having the 9 private schools in Qld (and however many equivalent in NSW) as the feeders for the Reds & Tahs, along with the ol' boys mentality where if you didn't go to the right primary school you'll never go to the right private high school which means that Randwick won't even look at you so you've got no chance of playing for the Wallabies.

True, but if they don’t have pro franchises in their strongholds of support how can they ever maximise their support and revenue?

That's because it's intrinsically amateur, local and suburban. If RA had any brains they'd: 1. quit super rugby 2. start a new franchise comp. 3. revert Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies etc to genuine rep teams. 4. establsish franchises in their grassroots strongholds in east Sydney, north shore Sydney, northern beaches Sydney, and maybe one other at Concorde for Jeznez and the other working class blokes.

Plus rugby union lost it’s cultural significance in Australia in 1907 when they stubbornly refused to adopt professionalism, leading to a huge breakaway that took most of the players and public support in Sydney & Brisbane to the newer version of rugby, which fully embraced professionalism, meaning it became the far more popular, culturally significant sport of the vast working class masses, and rugby union was relegated to a niche upper class wealthy private/catholic school sport played by the rich minority. The dumbest thing the aussies did was let themselves be cannon fodder for the kiwis in annual multi game contest in a sport they couldn’t ever realistically compete with NZ in. This issue exists to this day of pleasing the kiwis rather than doing what’s best for their grassroots fans and the sport in general in the intensively competitive aussie sports market.

(They sent my previous comment away) Gregan deserves whatever flak he cops, was a dopey thing to say. The underarm incident is a weird thing for several reasons: It’s culturally significant for kiwis only, who constantly want to bring it up to aussies (kind of like the bledisloe cup!), and use it to justify their giant chip against all aussies. Only Greg Chappell was really involved: as captain, he ordered his poor reluctant brother to do it. Vice captain Rod Marsh clearly was waving his arms telling Greg not to do it. None of the players, crowd, commentators or aussie public supported it, but kiwis tell all aussies about it as though they’re part of Greg Chappell’s decision!

Still, the all blacks not attracting kiwis to a game in Sydney seems to be bizarre. It just seems it's more culturally relevant for kiwis more when they play (and hopefully for them, beat) aussies in sport than anyone else.

Well, the "four more years" comment was arrogant and dopey no doubt, and Gregan deserves whatever flack he gets for it. The underarm thing is a weird one because it's culturally significant for kiwis, who don't shut up about it to aussies even this day, but something aussies have to bizarrely hear about it constantly despite it not really being significant to us...so kind of like the bledisloe cup! :silly: The irony with the underarm ball was it was the best thing that happened for cricket in NZ, with cricket crowds going through the roof, with Eden Park apparently packed to the rafters when they played the aussies there the next year, and generally larger crowds for cricket in NZ from then on (particularly against the aussies!). The other weird thing is that it was solely to do with Greg Chappell: as captain, he ordered his poor reluctant brother to do it, VC Rod Marsh was clearly waving his arms saying not to do it (to this day he won't sign any memorabilia with Greg Chappell's name along with his name!) , Lillee was apparently trying to orchestrate a no ball with the square leg umpire to (hopefully) notice him moving outside the circle, the whole crowd booed, the umpire raised his eyebrows in disbelief, the commentators, including older brother Ian Chappell who was heard saying "don't do it!", and Richie Benaud etc all said how stupid Chappell was to do it, the Australian public didn't support it....yet kiwis use it to justify their giant chip against all aussies, despite Greg Chappell the only aussie who wanted to do it...and even now he admits he was an idiot for doing it!

slighted not bullied I'd hate to be accused of playing the victim card

I'd say the Pumas then didn't have the pull they do now.

Well maybe...but a few weeks back the all blacks played the pumas out at Parramatta: smack bang in the geographical centre of Sydney, a lot more convenient to get to for the working class hordes of kiwis who live in the west and south of Sydney, yet they couldn't get that stadium one third full (less than 10,000! :shocked: ) And I think the stadium was allowed to hold a lot more than that (maybe half to two thirds?) yet the kiwis didn't show up!

For sure the little brother having a win at something - but Aust have brought a lot of that sentiment on themselves. "Four more years" Underarm etc etc. Your expecting alot if you think that the bullied don't forget

And this is why Aus need to go it alone: the kiwis will never open up to embrace free professionalism as they'll always assume this will help out the aussies and others, to their all blacks detriment...and that is their worst nightmare! To say kiwis love having a sport they can dominate, and particularly dominate us aussies at, is one of the biggest understatements in human history!!!

you'd have to admit the decline of numbers is on the Wallabies supporters side of the equation - not the kiwis. As for games in Mel and Perth certainly your explanation holds some water but too an attempt - just as league - to further the brand.

The sellout bledisloes are a red herring due to the mass migration of kiwis to Australia over the last 50 years, and in particularly the last 20-30 years. More NZ supporters were at Sydney matches than aussies since the late 70’s apparently, effectively making them NZ home games. There are now matches played in places like Perth & Melbourne…why is that? Is the sport popular or culturally relevant there, or is there some other factor involved, namely a whole horde of migrants who like wearing black? :silly: Kiwis deluded themselves that these bledisloe crowds were due to rugby union gaining cultural prominence in Australia, and that millions of aussies are apparently sitting there waiting for the wallabies to be successful to jump on the rugby union bandwagon. I tell them Australia won two world cups before NZ did, and two in the 90’s, yet when they get here to Perth they find out hardly anyone knows or cares. Why will the wallabies winning make the difference all of a sudden???!! Plus that sellout 110,000 bledisloe match at the Sydney olympic stadium that kiwis keep bringing up over the years was half filled with kiwis, and also was significant as being essentially the first sporting event held at the fancy new olympic stadium at Homebush, with all the surrounding stadiums and olympic precinct that people got to see in the flesh as excitement grew for the 2000 olympics. The same stadium now can’t even come close to selling out at it’s current 83,000 capacity for bledisloe matches as the novelty has worn off that stadium, it’s apparently inconvenient to get to for a lot of people, and most of Sydney’s union supporters are in the east and north shore/beaches, where the SFS/SCG are hard to get to…but a heck of a lot more convenient than to go to Homebush.

2008 they won the WC - very fortuitously. - Billy Slater brain fade and a try to Blair after some movement a pinball wizard would be proud of. But, yes your point is valid that NZ is competitive in league as their are so many Kiwis being developed in NRL sides - and its likely the same would happen in reverse for union. And yeah, maybe you could go as far as a draft system for Super Rugby. You're right

There was a period where the Kiwis were dominating the Kangaroos in the late 2000's over a number of years. Yet that was a good thing because all those kiwis were pro players in the NRL, which made the rivalry more competitive as all these kiwis had access to a pro comp to play with and against these aussies. The aussies were never threatened by this. When I tell kiwis to let's get serious about this super rugby comp and make it as exciting as possible, like for example opening up the comp to recruitment regardless of nationality, and say for example get blokes like Beaduen Barrett over here to Perth to play for the Force and get someone like me interested, they baulk at it and start getting angry, saying: "That's up to Australia to develop their players! :angry: " Everything to them is about the protectionist top down system that completely compromises the super rugby comp. Yet the same kiwis don't see their own hypocrisy, and then are keen to boast about the amount of "kiwi born" talent that apparently props up the NRL comp, and boast about every other single kiwi success by individuals that have been hired by aussies in aussie pro sports comps ???

Agree with that, there is no point in adopting NZs system in an environment that is different. At what time were the Wallabies relevant? and I don't mean that facetiously. I remember well the 98-03 period when the Bledisloe was a sellout. The 03 WC final still ranks as 5th (i think) of all time largest crowds in Aust. I believe Aust Rugby blew the opportunity of that period to make Union the outright third winter code, 4th overall behind AFL,NRL and cricket. How to make Australian Rugby great again seems to be the question.

And yes, success helps. But the bandwagon effect only helps so much. The same effect happens in NZ when the Warriors & Phoenix are doing well: more fans start showing up, but then quickly drop away during the tougher times. But I don’t ever expect success in these sports will ever see them take the place of rugby union as the most culturally prominent sport in NZ, the same way brumbies, wallabies etc success won’t ever see rugby union take over the other three pro football codes in cultural prominence. Successful pro sport comps thrive on tribalism and passion, something that rugby union needs to invest in Australia, rather than being tied to the failed NZ inspired model of top down protectionism and a trial match pro league which’ll never come close to what the NRL & AFL offer for sports fans. The all blacks are like a religion for kiwis, so their adopted system makes sense. The wallabies aren’t relevant for most aussies, so designing a pro comp based on the vain hope that that can make the wallabies successful and permanently competitive with the all blacks is naive and doomed to fail.

Your claim was dominate: I hardly suggest that NZ has ever dominated League despite winning occasionally. Netball yes in the 80’s and early 90’s. And per capita NZ does exceptionally well at the Olympics – but still I’d not suggest they dominate. NZ Super sides are more tribal than NRL sides however the dynamic is different now because the All Blacks have been elevated to THE most important expression of NZ rugby. The Ranfurly Shield at one point (esp Auck v Canterbury in the 80’s was exceptionally parochial. Auck could probably have two on paper but the fact that they have three titles to Canterburys 9? Yes a few Aucklanders make their way South of the Bombay Hills but for the most part it is as much for their benefit.

NZ has won world cups in hockey(or olympic golds?), netball, rugby league, so not unprecedented. But the consistency of the all blacks means that NZ is always going to generally be the benchmark for rugby union, which makes that a unique situation, and one that’s understandable that kiwis will be vicious about protecting the perceived advantages they have. The NRL has tribalism that can’t really be matched: 9 suburban Sydney clubs with direct/indirect heritage from the NSWRL comp that the NRL evolved from. The same applies with the AFL, with 9 suburban Melbourne sides & Geelong, with direct heritage from the VFL. Auckland has only one pro club in NZ’s national sport, which is surprising considering it’s size. All of Sydney is represented by only one pro club in rugby union…and bizarrely that club is also the state rep team! Sydney’s union supporter base would be better served with 3-4 pro franchises that would maximise the revenue and facilitate some much needed tribalism and rivalry.