The Hickey should stay thread

[Aussie D]

For those who don't blame the coach but rather the players. Why do you think he should stay?

I will start by saying it will not be good for NSW to get back on the coaching merry-go-round. Remember how much of a mess the 'tahs were before Link was given an extended tenure?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

You CANNOT judge a coach on 2 games, of which one win, one loss. Give the guy a chance!!

 

[Blue]

You CANNOT judge a coach on 2 games, of which one win, one loss. Give the guy a chance!!

Uhm, what about last season? 13 games there. Hickey just doesnlt imspire me with confidence. He talks in cliches and never risks anything. I just get a "safety first" feeling off him.

The Tahs just look like a side that has had all creativity coached out of them and repalced with a game plan that the players aren't executing particularly well. He makes some baffling decisions, like yanking Mitchell last weekend

I really wish that they will get it right (just not this weekend because God knows the game in Sydney needs them to perform.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Oh shit, I thought he was new this season! nice work MR, nice work.

Waratah's were boring as batshit last year, yeah, he should go.

 

[Moses]

He's just keeping the seat warm till Cheika comes home next year...

 

[waratahjesus]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

 

[DPK]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

This attitude is exactly why attendances are shit and why rugby is in the state it is. When your playing professional sport, youre no longer in sport: youre in the entertainment industry. If rugby wants to make money and get crowds, play exciting. Sure, a diehard fan wants to see their team win, but "winning ugly" doesnt win what rugby needs: money.

 

[waratahjesus]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

This attitude is exactly why attendances are shit and why rugby is in the state it is. When your playing professional sport, youre no longer in sport: youre in the entertainment industry. If rugby wants to make money and get crowds, play exciting. Sure, a diehard fan wants to see their team win, but "winning ugly" doesnt win what rugby needs: money.

you do realise that the whole "ëntertainment bussiness" shlick is a media campaign designed by John O'Neil and the ARU marketing department dont you? There trying to get more fans to attend games so constantly throwing it out there that "running rugby" is back, or that the new laws make rugby "more exciting" means that people writing the newspaper columns and reporting on tv and radio are going to use those terms and generate interest, it has nothing to actually do with whats really going on.

The state unions are struggling with money, the ARU since flowers has actually had a handy little turn around and are making increasing profits with each year going by. So its not an attitude problem or a problem with the rugby being played, its a problem with selling the super 14 as a competition, with melbourne coming in and the aussie conference system there hoping that will take care of it, but 20 thousand to a game locally is a good good thing.

 

[Epi]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

Bullshit. I remember as does everybody who watched the game. The Tahs suck even when they win.

 

[DPK]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

This attitude is exactly why attendances are shit and why rugby is in the state it is. When your playing professional sport, youre no longer in sport: youre in the entertainment industry. If rugby wants to make money and get crowds, play exciting. Sure, a diehard fan wants to see their team win, but "winning ugly" doesnt win what rugby needs: money.

you do realise that the whole "ëntertainment bussiness" shlick is a media campaign designed by John O'Neil and the ARU marketing department dont you? There trying to get more fans to attend games so constantly throwing it out there that "running rugby" is back, or that the new laws make rugby "more exciting" means that people writing the newspaper columns and reporting on tv and radio are going to use those terms and generate interest, it has nothing to actually do with whats really going on.

The state unions are struggling with money, the ARU since flowers has actually had a handy little turn around and are making increasing profits with each year going by. So its not an attitude problem or a problem with the rugby being played, its a problem with selling the super 14 as a competition, with melbourne coming in and the aussie conference system there hoping that will take care of it, but 20 thousand to a game locally is a good good thing.

Think about it. Obviously, the attendances at the tahs home games last year could have been better. My opinion is that there are two main factors contributing to the lack of popularity of the Super 14 and Rugby Union in general:

1. TV arrangements; the lack of rugby exposure on free to air television cuts off a large part of the market.

2. Lack of exciting play: WJ, you cant deny that the general public doesnt like watching games decided by kicks at goal.

 

[James Buchanan]

This attitude is exactly why attendances are shit and why rugby is in the state it is. When your playing professional sport, youre no longer in sport: youre in the entertainment industry. If rugby wants to make money and get crowds, play exciting. Sure, a diehard fan wants to see their team win, but "winning ugly" doesnt win what rugby needs: money.

you do realise that the whole "ëntertainment bussiness" shlick is a media campaign designed by John O'Neil and the ARU marketing department dont you? There trying to get more fans to attend games so constantly throwing it out there that "running rugby" is back, or that the new laws make rugby "more exciting" means that people writing the newspaper columns and reporting on tv and radio are going to use those terms and generate interest, it has nothing to actually do with whats really going on.

The state unions are struggling with money, the ARU since flowers has actually had a handy little turn around and are making increasing profits with each year going by. So its not an attitude problem or a problem with the rugby being played, its a problem with selling the super 14 as a competition, with melbourne coming in and the aussie conference system there hoping that will take care of it, but 20 thousand to a game locally is a good good thing.

Think about it. Obviously, the attendances at the tahs home games last year could have been better. My opinion is that there are two main factors contributing to the lack of popularity of the Super 14 and Rugby Union in general:

1. TV arrangements; the lack of rugby exposure on free to air television cuts off a large part of the market.

2. Lack of exciting play: WJ, you cant deny that the general public doesnt like watching games decided by kicks at goal.

'Running Rugby' does not guarantee exciting play. For me one of the most exciting games still is the '99 world cup semi-final against South Africa. When Bernie nailed that drop goal I was ecstatic. As was everyone else in the college that had come to watch it in out TV room.

I think the answer is somewhere between your positions. The lawmakers have the objective to make the game enjoyable to play and watch. Super 14/15 is a spectacle and it should be engineered as such. However, it is the players and coaches' role to do their very best to win the games infront of them, or at the very least be competitive. If you think about it, nothing turns off an audience more than their team not being competitive.

For example, last year the Reds played 'running rugby' with all their might and got thoroughly walloped after a few promising performances early. And people switched off. While its far too early to say this year, but Link has provided a more structured approach to how they go about their game, which has seemed to make them much more competitive. And from what I can hear, people are starting to go back to them.

In relevance to the original topic. I've only seen one game so far for the Waratahs but in that game they were soft at the breakdown and disorganised in the backs. I don't blame their scrum so much because I still feel that the reffing was poor for that effort. Even so, the first two signs do not bode well for the rest of their season. When I was watching it, I blamed Hickey, because it is a coaches' job to bring structure and organisation to a team; if he cannot then he should go.

However, Tah fans should be cautious of jumping on the bandwagon of getting rid of a coach prematurely. Last time it happened they lost Link and got Hickey, because no-one else was available. Simply put if the NSWRU doesn't like how Hickey is going they should be courting Cheika or whomever to be ready to announce their signature as soon as Hickey is fired, at the end of the season (if he is going to be fired).

 

[waratahjesus]

it depends on what you mean by "general public" as pointed out, rugby is only on fox so only people who want to see it are going to see it. its usually on at the same time as an nrl game so therefore anyone at a pub might have a choice or be watching a 530 game from nz before watching a 730 league game.

averaging 20 thousand people in sydney is a good thing, any team in any competition in there right mind would tell you the same.

as for boring play, im going to call it that the "general public", as in the non rugby watching "general public" is made up by three groups, people who dont watch sport but will get swept up in an australian v someone game, people who watch other sports and have a small general knowledge of rugby and will chime in for a game now and then and the third and final, people who are never going to watch.

boring play is boring play, you watch half the NRL games on any given weekend and its five tackles follwed by a kick up and down the field, its completely boring but the marketing leads the general public to believe its unmissable. Super rugby in any form has never been unmissable in any way. the general public dont give two hoots about south african provincial teams, hell even the south africans dont name there teams after actual places. The increased crowds in sydney in paticular are always bandwagon supporters when were winning and it has never mattered if it was pretty or bad, the end of the day people in sydney have a choice and are only going to support winners, look at the swans next door, sold out every week then they have a bad year 20 thousand and less week in week out.

The reds bandwagon on this board will tell you, as exciting as they think winning 50% of there home games so far is, the crowd isnt coming back, hell this week there playing at a stadium that insures it wont again. I can bet that there hasnt been a spike in tv ratings that reflects there style of play and they wont be sitting on piles more money at the end of the year.

you can bang on all you want about exciting rugby, but an australian team holding up a trophy is the only thing thats going to make headlines

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

There's some truth in what you say WJ, and I'm generally not one to go on the bandwagon's about boring rugby etc etc. I like a 12-6 result as much as I like a 31-29 result (I hate a 72-65 result).

As an avid rugby fan, I'll watch anything. I would have watched the Cheetah's vs Sharks match last week if I could - 2 teams I share no connection with whatsoever, if I think it's going to be a decent game, then I'll watch it.

But on last year's games, I wouldn't watch the Tah's. And if I won't watch them, then how the hell could you expect fairweather rugby fans to watch them?

On a more upbeat note though, I did watch the Reds/Tahs game this year and enjoyed it so perhaps a corner has been turned? but reading the write ups' on the stormers match, maybe not so much.

 

[HG]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

You have to be kidding! They lost last weekend and couldn't get over the line for a try.
There is something wrong with in.
The playing roster looks great on paper but can't get over the line. This was their problem last year.
I has to be the way the coach wants them to play.

 

[James Buchanan]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

You have to be kidding! They lost last weekend and couldn't get over the line for a try.
There is something wrong with in.
The playing roster looks great on paper but can't get over the line. This was their problem last year.
I has to be the way the coach wants them to play.

Your post is a non-sequitur from what was originally posted though.

That they couldn't get over the try line has very little to do with if they are playing 'entertaining rugby', or about Hickey staying if the Tahs make the finals etc..

 

[DPK]

it depends on what you mean by "general public" as pointed out, rugby is only on fox so only people who want to see it are going to see it. its usually on at the same time as an nrl game so therefore anyone at a pub might have a choice or be watching a 530 game from nz before watching a 730 league game.

averaging 20 thousand people in sydney is a good thing, any team in any competition in there right mind would tell you the same.

as for boring play, im going to call it that the "general public", as in the non rugby watching "general public" is made up by three groups, people who dont watch sport but will get swept up in an australian v someone game, people who watch other sports and have a small general knowledge of rugby and will chime in for a game now and then and the third and final, people who are never going to watch.

boring play is boring play, you watch half the NRL games on any given weekend and its five tackles follwed by a kick up and down the field, its completely boring but the marketing leads the general public to believe its unmissable. Super rugby in any form has never been unmissable in any way. the general public dont give two hoots about south african provincial teams, hell even the south africans dont name there teams after actual places. The increased crowds in sydney in paticular are always bandwagon supporters when were winning and it has never mattered if it was pretty or bad, the end of the day people in sydney have a choice and are only going to support winners, look at the swans next door, sold out every week then they have a bad year 20 thousand and less week in week out.

The reds bandwagon on this board will tell you, as exciting as they think winning 50% of there home games so far is, the crowd isnt coming back, hell this week there playing at a stadium that insures it wont again. I can bet that there hasnt been a spike in tv ratings that reflects there style of play and they wont be sitting on piles more money at the end of the year.

you can bang on all you want about exciting rugby, but an australian team holding up a trophy is the only thing thats going to make headlines

I like your division of the general public, but those groups are dynamic. For instance, with more free to air exposure of Rugby, the people in the group with "a small general knowledge of rugby" could be "converted" , if you will, into fans. From my own experience, i have friends who have tried to get into rugby, but find the game mystifying, particularly the breakdown (a certain friend of mine thought that this was simply "stacks on"... he was serious.). If the game had more exposure, like more frequent matches on television or a highlights show with a slight focus on (respecting the audiences intelligence of course) education about the game.

Also, i stand by my belief that professional sport is entertainment. I havent simply swallowed some ARU bullshit, this fact is true to all professional sports, cricket being another example. I would compare exciting rugby (not neccesarily running rugby, there is a difference- eg Reds vs Crusaders compared with Lions vs Chiefs) with exciting cricket- twenty/20's vs ODIs. One dayers at the moment are boring as because of the aussie tactic of an opening partnership with aggresiveness followed by simply tapping away runs. This is like when rugby matches are decided by boring tactics- the diehard fans are pleased to see the team win, but for a non fan, this is boring. you dont make new fans with salad. salad being boring tactics.

 

[DPK]

Apologies, my posts are not of the threads topic. Can we move to a new thread?

 

[Scarfman]

Nah, it's fine. The "keep Hickey" movement ran out of puff in about two posts.

 

[HG]

why the f does it matter if the tahs are boring or not. i would take wins over "ëntertaining rugby". people dont remember that the reds were exciting in game one, they remember they lost, lost to the better team. who cares.

if hickey makes the finals he should stay, if he doesnt then its a 50/50 call and if they have a shocker he is gone, just depends on when a new coach search would have to be conducted as to when they should make the call.

You have to be kidding! They lost last weekend and couldn't get over the line for a try.
There is something wrong with in.
The playing roster looks great on paper but can't get over the line. This was their problem last year.
I has to be the way the coach wants them to play.

Your post is a non-sequitur from what was originally posted though.

That they couldn't get over the try line has very little to do with if they are playing 'entertaining rugby', or about Hickey staying if the Tahs make the finals etc..

I am sorry if my post seemed humorous or confusing to such a literary giant as yourself.

That they failed to get over the try line has something to say about their style of play. It is unattractive and boring to watch. The way referee's view the tackle has changed but the Tahs play book hasn't. As far as the Tahs making the finals there would have to be some sort of divine intervention if they keep playing the style of rugby they are.
It was dull and boring last year! This year it is comical!

 

[waratahjesus]

it depends on what you mean by "general public" as pointed out, rugby is only on fox so only people who want to see it are going to see it. its usually on at the same time as an nrl game so therefore anyone at a pub might have a choice or be watching a 530 game from nz before watching a 730 league game.

averaging 20 thousand people in sydney is a good thing, any team in any competition in there right mind would tell you the same.

as for boring play, im going to call it that the "general public", as in the non rugby watching "general public" is made up by three groups, people who dont watch sport but will get swept up in an australian v someone game, people who watch other sports and have a small general knowledge of rugby and will chime in for a game now and then and the third and final, people who are never going to watch.

boring play is boring play, you watch half the NRL games on any given weekend and its five tackles follwed by a kick up and down the field, its completely boring but the marketing leads the general public to believe its unmissable. Super rugby in any form has never been unmissable in any way. the general public dont give two hoots about south african provincial teams, hell even the south africans dont name there teams after actual places. The increased crowds in sydney in paticular are always bandwagon supporters when were winning and it has never mattered if it was pretty or bad, the end of the day people in sydney have a choice and are only going to support winners, look at the swans next door, sold out every week then they have a bad year 20 thousand and less week in week out.

The reds bandwagon on this board will tell you, as exciting as they think winning 50% of there home games so far is, the crowd isnt coming back, hell this week there playing at a stadium that insures it wont again. I can bet that there hasnt been a spike in tv ratings that reflects there style of play and they wont be sitting on piles more money at the end of the year.

you can bang on all you want about exciting rugby, but an australian team holding up a trophy is the only thing thats going to make headlines

I like your division of the general public, but those groups are dynamic. For instance, with more free to air exposure of Rugby, the people in the group with "a small general knowledge of rugby" could be "converted" , if you will, into fans. From my own experience, i have friends who have tried to get into rugby, but find the game mystifying, particularly the breakdown (a certain friend of mine thought that this was simply "stacks on"... he was serious.). If the game had more exposure, like more frequent matches on television or a highlights show with a slight focus on (respecting the audiences intelligence of course) education about the game.

Also, i stand by my belief that professional sport is entertainment. I havent simply swallowed some ARU bullshit, this fact is true to all professional sports, cricket being another example. I would compare exciting rugby (not neccesarily running rugby, there is a difference- eg Reds vs Crusaders compared with Lions vs Chiefs) with exciting cricket- twenty/20's vs ODIs. One dayers at the moment are boring as because of the aussie tactic of an opening partnership with aggresiveness followed by simply tapping away runs. This is like when rugby matches are decided by boring tactics- the diehard fans are pleased to see the team win, but for a non fan, this is boring. you dont make new fans with salad. salad being boring tactics.

i agree that it is entertainment as a product to sell, but the difference between rugby and league is and always will be that league is able to change rules and regulations to make there game more accesable and tv friendly. Rugby is more of a traditional sport more along the lines of Football that it extends off our shores and has history and tradition that make it special in its own right. By this i mean, a game of rugby is always going to be a game of rugby, whats entertainment is the way its packaged before and after a game and even during half time. The perception of the game needs to be that it is better than what it is and fairweather or bandwagon supporters will jump on. To say that the tahs cost crowds due to there style of play opens alot of doors that you dont really want to touch. Buying league players like Lote and Dell attracted interest beyond rugby circles, does this mean we should do it more?