Roar Rookie
Joined August 2018
6.1k
Views
3
Published
39
Comments
Published
Comments
I stirred things up with a recent article suggesting there are too many teams in the three major football codes in Australia. This generated…
Come together. No, not in that way. Get your minds out of the gutter! I'm talking about some of the AFL, rugby union and…
I have been reading a lot of pieces saying Michael Cheika should not be shouldering so much of the blame for the team's poor…
Yes, it is. And it will continue to be the case until the win consistently instead of the occasional good showing against a team that played with 14 men for an entire half.
Bledi hell! Wallabies walloped by brilliant All Blacks
According to an absurd ranking system, but that’s not reality.
Wales would have faced the same thrashing as the Wallabies.
Bledi hell! Wallabies walloped by brilliant All Blacks
One five year period of dominance over 116 years. That’s hardly swings and roundabout.
The only other period of Wallaby dominance was 1991 – 1992, during which the Wallabies won 4 of the 6 tests.
There have been 3 or 4 individual years since 1903 in which the Wallabies have won more tests that the All Blacks, but a single year does really constitute a period of dominance.
Bledi hell! Wallabies walloped by brilliant All Blacks
We were too good for a team wit 14 players on the park for half the game.
The media are to blame for the Wallabies' failure
So if the media had talked down the Wallabies’ win in Perth – home crowd, All Blacks only had 14 players for an entire half, they had to defeat the ABs at some stage, they had some lucky breaks, the ABs had some bad luck, the ABs didn’t field a full strength side (irrespective of whether it’s the truth or not; only that the media says it) – then the Wallabies would have won at Eden Park, would the?
I mean, if the media is responsible for the Wallabies’ poor performance, then it’s also responsible for their good performance. You can’t have it both ways.
The media are to blame for the Wallabies' failure
So, you are suggesting that – apart from Smith and Warner – no Australians have cheated in sport. I think you have a very blinkered view of history.
A golden opportunity: Don't pick Smith and Warner
At least you get the point. The point is that mergers are essential. Sure, you can argue about which ones make sense and which don’t. I mean, I don’t care which clubs merge and which ones remain. What I do care about is that someone makes the logical decision to cut the number of Sydney based teams to 6 at most.
Which teams deserve the axe?
And many others have suggested/recommended that mergers are essential, particularly in the NRL. The merits of each particular merger is not the issue. The issue is that mergers must occur because 9 Sydney based sides in a national competition is absurd.
Which teams deserve the axe?
It’s happened before in the AFL and the NRL. Teams have been moved, merged and extinguished because the powers that be determined that there were too many teams in one market and that rationalisation was necessary for the health of the code. What I am suggesting – irrespective of the merits of the specific mergers – is simply the next logical step needed to strengthen the sport of rugby league.
Which teams deserve the axe?
Many other commentators and people who are actual experts have consistently said that there are too many Sydney-based teams in the NRL. It’s supposed to be the NATIONAL Rugby League, and yet, Sydney disproportionately dominates.
Which teams deserve the axe?
Yes, because the number of Melbourne based clubs is unsustainable in the longer term. At least three clubs average only 20,000 to 25,000 spectators at home games. That’s not viable.
Which teams deserve the axe?
Back in February 2014, Ryan O’Connell wrote that there are far too many Sydney based teams and proposed a more radical re-struture of the code than I have: https://www.theroar.com.au/2014/02/11/there-are-too-many-sydney-teams-in-the-nrl/
Which teams deserve the axe?
The predictable reaction occurred. Just like the powers that be, supporters don’t want radical or significant change. They like things to move along the way they are and maintain the status quo, rather than questioning the sanity of the status quo. Irrespective of the logic of the specific mergers (particularly between NRL clubs), it has to happen. Otherwise that code will slip into oblivion as the AFL continues to run rampant.
Which teams deserve the axe?
St Kilda (25,500 – average attendance at home games in 2018), the Western Bulldogs (25,732) and North Melbourne (20,958) don’t really pull decent attendances.
Richmond (61,175), Collingwood (49,898), Essendon (47,356), Melbourne (40,695) and Geelong (34,207) do.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
Perhaps the overall attendance might not increase in the short term. Perhaps you might only get more people per match with the numbers increasing steadily over a few years as the standard and intensity improves due to a higher concentration of top talent on the same paddock and if ticket prices were reduced to improve value for money.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
But Optus (Perth) Stadium was used on 23 occasions for AFL matches in 2018. The average attendance at home and away games for the 2018 AFL season was 34, 818, with Optus Stadium averaging 46.893 spectators (78% capacity) (https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2018.html)
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
No way will I tackle your last point here. I mean, even the suggestion that there are too many teams in the 3 footy codes and the very idea of merging teams has caused enough deflak (combo of debate and flak) without opening an additional can of worms. However, to stir the pot, I might pen a follow up piece providing my views on that issue. But it could get ugly.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
Which is a key part of my point. They limit supply to 32 teams each playing 16 home and away matches a year over a 17 week season. What would happen to average NFL attendances if they increased the number of teams to 64 each playing, say 20 games a year, I wonder?
The main competition for football in the US is baseball with the regular season finishing in week 4 of the NFL season and the World Series concluding by week 8 of the NFL season.
The NBA season starts during week 6 of the NFL season.
I suppose US college football competes, particularly in cities where you have one or more NFL teams and several college teams.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
The Broncos averaged 31.234 (not 29,000). The Broncos played 12 home games. There were 14 games in total at Lang Park. Therefore, other League matches of some description must have been played as Lang Park during 2018, not involving the Broncos.
Kogarah is 77% – 15.753 average attendance /20,505 capacity
Leichardt is 81% – 16,166 average attendance / 20,000 capacity
Willows Sports Complex (Cowboys) is 58%
Penrith is 65%
Wollongong is 61%
Shark Park is 58%
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
The EFL Championship (ie the second level down in English football) had an average attendance of 20,125 during the 2016-17 campaign. (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42704713).
The next level below the EFL Championship – EFL One – has an average attendance of around 7,800 (http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveeng.htm)
The average attendance at home and away NRL matches in 2018 was 15,260. (https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/2018.html)
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
Some would call that collateral damage. That is, you do what’s best for the majority and for the future.
And, if people won’t or can’t get over it, isn’t that their issue.
Also, given that support for AFL (in attendance and TV ratings) terms and the NRL (in TV ratings terms) has increased, I can’t see the merits of the emotional case. You seem to be suggesting something like “Lets keep these two teams who have attracted an average of 11,000 spectators per game over the past 5 years.” Rather than applying economic principles and merging those teams.
Anyone who still thinks that pro sports is not a business has their head in the sand. The CEO of the AFL calls the AFL a business, because it is: it generates hundreds of millions a year and reinvests into the sport, just like any business does.
As I said in response to another comment, we can go back to the old days when players were paid pocket money and remained at their same club for most of their careers. But that ain’t gonna happen, is it? Therefore, it’s about time for sports administrators to grow up and become business people and make decisions that are in the long term interests of the fans. Yes, there will be casualties along the way as a result of poorly formed decisions made in the past, but that’s the price that has to be paid.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
The NRL kicked out teams. The initially might have lost fans, but TV ratings have increased, have they not?
The AFL kicked out teams. TV ratings and attendance numbers have increased, have they not?
Comparing Australia and the US is valid in the sense that the fill their stadiums, they only have 32 NFL teams for 325 million people, while we have 16 (NRL) or 18 teams (AFL) for 25 million people. Same goes for England and Germany. Sure, these countries could have even more teams, but they understand the economics better than our administrators do.
What I am saying that there has to be a more sensible ratio of people to teams.
The issue is being willing to take a deep breath, admit that mistakes have been made and that continuing along the current path is not going to be fruitful.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
Yes, you are correct. NRL supporters don’t like going to big stadiums because they will be lonely.
Not sure what TV has to do with it. It makes for far TV better entertainment if a match is being telecast from a 75%+ full stadium than one where you don’t see anyone in the outer.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
Be interested to know why Canterbury and Souths are massive outliers. In what sense is this the case?
At the other end, the Broncos would be an outlier also since their average home attendance was more than double the average of the rest, therefore pulling the average up.
Why Australia's sporting competitions need fewer teams
The All Blacks are beatable. But not by the Wallabies.
I just want to know what positive difference has Eddie made? I see no evidence. They are still playing the unimpressive way they have for the bulk of the past 20 years. Can someone enlighten me?
'It's the All Blacks': Kerevi rubbishes suggestions Foster has left the 'door open' but says NZ are 'beatable'