D
daz
Guest
Ladies and Gents,
Saw this article on Rugby Heaven. A funny read, I suppose, but with a dark edge. There was a comment attached by a reader that I have copied and pasted here. While I applaud G&GR for flying the flag on behalf of the ARU (without being asked, one surmises), it never-the-less begs the question:
Are the fans also responsible for ARU marketing/spreading the good word....and are we being let down by the very organisation that needs us?
Invisible Wallabies in need of public profile
SADLY, NZ Telecom has abandoned the ''Touch, pause, don't engage'' advertising campaign that was to have asked New Zealanders to give up sex in order to help the All Blacks overcome their World Cup hoodoo. The correlation between copulating Kiwis and the performance anxiety suffered every four years by the fabled XV is not fully apparent. Still, on the whole, the thought of thousands of New Zealanders not performing the horizontal folk dance seems better than the alternative.
But before you perform your hilarious ''fush and chups'' accent, make predictable livestock references and ponder the desirability of a sudden drop in the New Zealand birth rate, ask yourself this: What would you give up in order to help the Wallabies win the World Cup?
I suspect, for most Australians, it is more likely to be quoits than coitus.
Such has been the decline in the arousal levels created by the national team - and the game itself - the idea of imposing some sort of national bonking ban here during the World Cup seems wholly unnecessary. Or, to put it crudely, why would you need to stop Australians having sex during the World Cup when so few give a $#@& about the Wallabies anyway? Well, not until they score.
Before you storm the laptop, this does not mean the Wallabies have dropped off the sporting radar. Naturally, they continue to enjoy robust support in their safe constituencies. Doubtless, the ARU could produce the customary rubbery figures - participation rates, general interest levels, sales of inflatable Wallabies - to prove rugby union is healthier than a marathon-running vegan. But look outside the game's comfy confines and there is no doubt the Wallabies have, in the past few years lost - to borrow an excruciating marketing term - ''global visibility''.
This week, Fox Sports replayed a Bledisloe Cup game from the mid-1980s. From the scrum to the commentary box, it featured an array of names that were familiar in households outside the game's traditional demographic. Campese, Farr-Jones, Lynagh, Gordan Bray. Glory days. A time when rugby was riding high in a golden era bookended by the celebrated 1984 grand-slam tour and the 1999 World Cup. You can pick your reason why the Wallabies are now less ingrained in the broader national consciousness. Lack of success, including now ritual Bledisloe Cup defeats, obviously. The self-imposed lull that beset the game generally after a series of rule changes. The resurgence of the NRL and the love affair with the Socceroos. Poor marketing, severe financial problems. Even a loss of identity in the professional age, where hyphenated grammar boys have been replaced by tattooed behemoths.
Flicking through smh.com.au's slide show of the Wallabies World Cup squad, there are an array of reasonably familiar names in a young, vibrant, yet physically vulnerable Wallabies team. Quade Cooper, James O'Connor, Berrick Barnes, Kurtley Beale et al have some renown - in Cooper's case, partly for reasons beyond the field. Yet they do not have the same resonance to the casual observer as the Wallabies of the recent past.
Naturally, it is unfair to compare a still callow team about to embark on its first major test with some of the greatest names in the game's history. Still, the low profile of the team underlines the importance of the task they face in October and in the years beyond. These Wallabies are charged with helping the franchise regain its sex appeal.
To that end, the extension of Robbie Deans's tenure seems a strange decision just before the World Cup. What might now be considered a strong show of faith in a coach developing a young squad will surely be reinterpreted as a rash and potentially costly contractual obligation if Australia's recent form against Samoa, rather than South Africa, is franked in New Zealand.
Still, you can see why the ARU hearties are taken by Deans. The Kiwi coach bears the enigmatic and strangely intimidating expression of the taciturn farmer gazing out at his crop. Is his mind occupied by weighty matters such as market prices and soil erosion? Or is he just staring into the distance?
Replacing out-of-form captain Rocky Elsom with James Horwill so close to the tournament might also be considered, in the political sense, brave. But Horwill seems the type of strong character to vindicate those who believe the captaincy should be always be given to the best leader, not necessarily the best player.
Little more than three weeks before their first World Cup game, even the experts seem unsure how this team will perform. The only certainty is that, should they make a bold run to the final, their ''visibility'' will suddenly improve. Then, as the Americans would say, all Australia will be rooting for the Wallabies.
http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...lic-profile-20110819-1j27b.html#ixzz1VZmv1rnI
"The ARU's marketing department is not doing it's job. For example, the Australian Barbarians play on the Gold Coast next Friday night and will feature many of the Wallabies returning from injury. I can't find any details on the ARU website and haven't heard any promtion about it anywhere. Plus it's not on TV (free to air or subscription). I onlt found details on it off the Green and Gold Rugby website. Pathetic really."
Thoughts?
Saw this article on Rugby Heaven. A funny read, I suppose, but with a dark edge. There was a comment attached by a reader that I have copied and pasted here. While I applaud G&GR for flying the flag on behalf of the ARU (without being asked, one surmises), it never-the-less begs the question:
Are the fans also responsible for ARU marketing/spreading the good word....and are we being let down by the very organisation that needs us?
Invisible Wallabies in need of public profile
SADLY, NZ Telecom has abandoned the ''Touch, pause, don't engage'' advertising campaign that was to have asked New Zealanders to give up sex in order to help the All Blacks overcome their World Cup hoodoo. The correlation between copulating Kiwis and the performance anxiety suffered every four years by the fabled XV is not fully apparent. Still, on the whole, the thought of thousands of New Zealanders not performing the horizontal folk dance seems better than the alternative.
But before you perform your hilarious ''fush and chups'' accent, make predictable livestock references and ponder the desirability of a sudden drop in the New Zealand birth rate, ask yourself this: What would you give up in order to help the Wallabies win the World Cup?
I suspect, for most Australians, it is more likely to be quoits than coitus.
Such has been the decline in the arousal levels created by the national team - and the game itself - the idea of imposing some sort of national bonking ban here during the World Cup seems wholly unnecessary. Or, to put it crudely, why would you need to stop Australians having sex during the World Cup when so few give a $#@& about the Wallabies anyway? Well, not until they score.
Before you storm the laptop, this does not mean the Wallabies have dropped off the sporting radar. Naturally, they continue to enjoy robust support in their safe constituencies. Doubtless, the ARU could produce the customary rubbery figures - participation rates, general interest levels, sales of inflatable Wallabies - to prove rugby union is healthier than a marathon-running vegan. But look outside the game's comfy confines and there is no doubt the Wallabies have, in the past few years lost - to borrow an excruciating marketing term - ''global visibility''.
This week, Fox Sports replayed a Bledisloe Cup game from the mid-1980s. From the scrum to the commentary box, it featured an array of names that were familiar in households outside the game's traditional demographic. Campese, Farr-Jones, Lynagh, Gordan Bray. Glory days. A time when rugby was riding high in a golden era bookended by the celebrated 1984 grand-slam tour and the 1999 World Cup. You can pick your reason why the Wallabies are now less ingrained in the broader national consciousness. Lack of success, including now ritual Bledisloe Cup defeats, obviously. The self-imposed lull that beset the game generally after a series of rule changes. The resurgence of the NRL and the love affair with the Socceroos. Poor marketing, severe financial problems. Even a loss of identity in the professional age, where hyphenated grammar boys have been replaced by tattooed behemoths.
Flicking through smh.com.au's slide show of the Wallabies World Cup squad, there are an array of reasonably familiar names in a young, vibrant, yet physically vulnerable Wallabies team. Quade Cooper, James O'Connor, Berrick Barnes, Kurtley Beale et al have some renown - in Cooper's case, partly for reasons beyond the field. Yet they do not have the same resonance to the casual observer as the Wallabies of the recent past.
Naturally, it is unfair to compare a still callow team about to embark on its first major test with some of the greatest names in the game's history. Still, the low profile of the team underlines the importance of the task they face in October and in the years beyond. These Wallabies are charged with helping the franchise regain its sex appeal.
To that end, the extension of Robbie Deans's tenure seems a strange decision just before the World Cup. What might now be considered a strong show of faith in a coach developing a young squad will surely be reinterpreted as a rash and potentially costly contractual obligation if Australia's recent form against Samoa, rather than South Africa, is franked in New Zealand.
Still, you can see why the ARU hearties are taken by Deans. The Kiwi coach bears the enigmatic and strangely intimidating expression of the taciturn farmer gazing out at his crop. Is his mind occupied by weighty matters such as market prices and soil erosion? Or is he just staring into the distance?
Replacing out-of-form captain Rocky Elsom with James Horwill so close to the tournament might also be considered, in the political sense, brave. But Horwill seems the type of strong character to vindicate those who believe the captaincy should be always be given to the best leader, not necessarily the best player.
Little more than three weeks before their first World Cup game, even the experts seem unsure how this team will perform. The only certainty is that, should they make a bold run to the final, their ''visibility'' will suddenly improve. Then, as the Americans would say, all Australia will be rooting for the Wallabies.
http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...lic-profile-20110819-1j27b.html#ixzz1VZmv1rnI
"The ARU's marketing department is not doing it's job. For example, the Australian Barbarians play on the Gold Coast next Friday night and will feature many of the Wallabies returning from injury. I can't find any details on the ARU website and haven't heard any promtion about it anywhere. Plus it's not on TV (free to air or subscription). I onlt found details on it off the Green and Gold Rugby website. Pathetic really."
Thoughts?
