The Roar
The Roar

James Vaughan

Roar Rookie

Joined October 2012

554

Views

1

Published

6

Comments

Published

Comments

Spot on about Clark’s hackneyed one liners. Few others: ‘But they cough it up.’ ‘To the short side they go.’ Cannon is a serial offender too, ‘Really using the full width of the field’, ‘Really taking them on with ball in hand’ and this one ive heard a number of times, no joke, “he’s always ever-present on the football field”.

I am really disappointed at the how far things have slid at Fox Sports. Cannon should never have been hired. You can’t deny his enthusiasm but his inability to think and form sentences are fundamental problems you would think for someone whose main job is to do just that. Marto is embarrassing and does the game a real disservice in Australia with his loud, grating in-your-face idiocy. Kearns, while clearly one-eyed, is good for a laugh but just needs to be deployed in much smaller doses. However when Clark, Marto and Kearns get together with Cannon on the sideline, the cocktail of loudness, witlessness, cliche, bias, and bone-headed analysis is murderous. What’s so annoying is it’s not like the talent isn’t there. Kafer and Horan are excellent and Sharpie is showing a lot of promise. I hope we see them form the backbone of the commentary team against the Lions.

Top five commentators in Super Rugby today

Add a fit Harris to that list and you’re on fire

Ashes 2013 preview: Part one - the pace attack

Couldn’t agree more, biltongbek

Does sport have an obligation to be entertaining?

Bingo NC. I really get fed up with the brain-dead “it’s a competitive marketplace” mantras. Come on. The game of rugby was here way before sponsors and TV ratings and the day it dies will be the day we give insipid, self-serving boardrooms the power to leverage its future. Fans should remember that sponsors and TV deals came knocking because people are a lot of people who love the game, and not the other way around. While I acknowledge some of the positive spin offs of sponsorship dollars in the sport, if it comes at the cost the sport’s integrity it’s not worth a cent.

We need to remember that rugby as a spectacle imperfect, and always has been. In fact therein lies its appeal to true fans; through imperfection comes diversity, subtlety, spontaneity, complexity, unpredictability and constant reinvention. And that is something to be treasured and defended, not subjected to the lowest-common denominator rationlizations and paint-by-numbers wisdom of bean counters and MBAs. Moreover, as genuine fans we have got to stop allowing ourselves to treated by sponsors, advertisers and administrators like cattle being crammed into a feeding lot. And it starts by rejecting the argument that rugby’s number one priority should be entertain the disinterested observer like a tap-dancing monkey. Is the game really now nothing more than a commodity on the market? What ever happened to enjoying and being part of a community people who love the game for what it is? This obsequious and slavish pursuit of ratings and sponsors are hardly the characteristics of a supposedly noble game steeped in history, nor is it an attitude that has ever propelled players and teams to greatness.

Don’t worry guys, I get it: teams without sponsors are teams in trouble. But you know something else? Teams who forget about the “reach” of their latest marketing campaign and focus instead on playing the game with pride, passion and integrity are going to be positive, likable teams who, lo and behold, find themselves attracting sponsors without effort while, far, far more importantly, winning the hearts of old and new rugby fans alike.

Does sport have an obligation to be entertaining?

Too much icing. Exactly

There's more to rugby than just a highlights package

Yeah there have been quite a few things written about the need to change the rules and I guess the point of this article was that there always seems to be the same tacit assumption there: the game must be more entertaining; we need to ‘speed it up’; we want more highlights. Faster isn’t necessarily better, especially if it is going to effectively standardize the pace of the game. At the moment we can have fast games, and we can have slow games, and mixes of the two. Is that a problem? I don’t think so. As jeznez rightly says, it’s never going to get faster than sevens, so if that’s what we’re supposed to be after we might as well just give up on the XV game altogether.

Perhaps the only rule change I’d get behind that I read about last week is the stopping of the clock for penalties and scrum resets. This would add another 10 or 15 minutes of actual game time without altering the architecture of the sport. I definitely find it depressing when a game has just gone into the final quarter and, just as the tension should really be reaching a climax, we’re at the 70 minute mark after watching five minutes of kickers squinting at goal posts and scrums being reset. These are important and necessary aspects of the game, no question, though I see no reason for them to be part of actual game time.

Five second rule at the ruck is interesting, and haven’t watched the ITM enough to really comment. While I imagine it has had the desired effect of speeding the game up and forcing defense onto the back foot a little bit, I’m also worried it would have the undesired effect of homogenizing the way different teams play. As it stands, any team can can set itself a five second rule if they believe it’s in their own interests. The All Blacks have shown how devastating a commitment to that philosophy can be. And while I am a massive fan of the All Blacks’ approach, I’m still an even bigger fan of the opportunity for teams to decide themselves how they would like to play. I love that other teams around the world have the chance to look at the All Blacks’ success in recent seasons and decide to play a similar game or one completely different. In other words, as much as I love watching the All Blacks play, I would hate to see every other team forced to play that way too. Sacrificing diversity on the alter of entertainment would be a big loss to the game. I haven’t watched much ITM cup though, can anyone comment on whether 5 second rule has reduced teams’ capacity to play to their own style and pace?

There's more to rugby than just a highlights package

close