Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

I wonder how many of the ARU's many critics actually give credit where credit is due?

The NRC is not perfect, and there is a lot that could have been improved (particularly the truly awful selfishness that meant that most of the franchises were playing in a shade of yellow in the first season) but it is progress.


A rare commodity these days.

I agree - credit where it is due. ARU have created NRC product and it is improving. Got to start somewhere and to me it is a good product that just needs to get more people to see to appreciate it is worth the effort and good value for money. Importantly they have created a product that is financially self sustaining. For me will only get better with Fiji team included as will increase the Oz PI community interest in the game. As rugby by going professional has allowed more PI involvement by allowing them to have a career in rugby. The response to PI day for NRC and response to players to play for NSW Tonga, NSW Samoa was amazing and shows what initiatives like NRC can do to reignite interest in the game.

Really don't need to tinker at all with the basics of the game, scoring and the like. Just need better quality, at all levels, coaching (not necessarily new coaches) and skills development in the players. Chiefs, Hurricanes and Crusaders have no issues with the game basics but are able to put on a show worthy of viewing almost all the time.

I probably disagree to generate a product that would appeal more to our domestic audience. Point scoring needs to change as the stop start nature of rugby with penalty goals worth 3 points will never create serious fan interest beyond the rusted on. Demands for more fast moving entertainment product is a given and only have to look at success of products like crickets big bash to understand that. But also yes need change in skills and quality of coaching as no one magic silver bullet as there is not one but a raft of changes that needs to be made to make rugby more appealing to domestic fans. As that is why it is not so simple and hence why requires a major rethink in approach to rugby in this country as the current perilous situation shows

 

[Strewthcobber]

Until non-gps players get anything like the coaching and resources invested into them that the schools do then there will always be a bias to the GPS players, and that's not even mentioning the scholarships that stack the school teams in the first place.

It's the ARU's best asset at the moment. They don't have to invest anything and they get their "best" players coaches by the best coaches at that level in the country

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I'm not so sure about the story down here in NSW, but I remember watching the rugby talent retract in Qld in the late 1990s and the 2000s. Sports scholarships became a huge arms race in near direct correlation with Australia's economic revival (i.e. GPS schools and their benefactors became flushed with cash). Their targets included kids from unfashionable areas such as Kingston, but they now also 'raid' talent from other former rugby nurseries such as AIC schools.

So what's happening is that the talent is being cherry picked. The 'unfashionable' schools and the junior club competition exist, and it's certainly possible to make rep squads from these places, but the talent has already been scouted and transplanted, and these competitions are now a shadow of their former selves.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Until non-gps players get anything like the coaching and resources invested into them that the schools do then there will always be a bias to the GPS players, and that's not even mentioning the scholarships that stack the school teams in the first place.

It's the ARU's best asset at the moment. They don't have to invest anything and they get their "best" players coaches by the best coaches at that level in the country

...and that's the other trouble with the scholarship arms race: concentration of training, playing style, culture to a handful of schools that are only attainable if you are from the right family or have been identified as scholarship material. And we wonder why players, volunteers, and supporters have left rugby in droves. Super Rugby is not meaningless because people don't know where the Sharks are from, but rather that the gane has gone back to being a game that only kids from Scots, Nudgee, Newington, or Southport play. No more Toutai Kefus from Coorparoo State High, or Matt Cockbains from Innisfail State High. We're making ourselves irrelevant.

 

[louie]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...f/news-story/3430d8131de1c90cc71911f223cfe42c

Cheika is spot on here. The audio interview is a great listen.

 

[half]

Roy Masters on Offsiders today said that the SA ratings are down over 50%. I have read that European ratings are well down. Further our own ratings are down.

My guess as I posted before is the Broadcasters with the change in the number of teams and falling ratings want to decrease the media deal. This is causing a delay in any announcement to future changes.

Below is a chart presented by Patrick Delaney's head of Fox Sport at a Melbourne Victory business lunch address. The chart is about A-League TV ratings and crowds.

I copied chart below from a soccer thread on 442 a site similar to ours but for soccer.

It would be interesting to view a similar chart on Super Rugby, my guess is it would show a steady decline. In part this is our problem.


2005-6 ==== 42k ============== 10,956
2006-7 ==== 56 ==== +33% ==== 12,911 ==== +18%
2007-8 ==== 70 ==== +25% ==== 14,610 ==== +13%
2008-9 ==== 64 ===== -8%===== 12,180 ==== -17%
2009-10 === 54 ==== -16%====== 9,791 ==== -20%
2010-11 === 45 ==== -16%===== 8,428 ===== -14%
2011-12 === 66 ==== +47% ===== 10,497 ==== +24%
2012-13 === 81 ==== +23% ===== 12,347 ==== +18%
2013-14 === 72 ==== -11%===== 13,025 ===== +6%
2014-15 === 62 ==== -14%===== 12,511 ====== -4%
2015-16 === 62 ====== 0 ====== 12,309 ====== -2%
2016-17 === 68 ===== +9% ==== = 12,707 ====== +2% after 112 games.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Roy Masters on Offsiders today said that the SA ratings are down over 50%. I have read that European ratings are well down. Further our own ratings are down.

My guess as I posted before is the Broadcasters with the change in the number of teams and falling ratings want to decrease the media deal. This is causing a delay in any announcement to future changes.

Below is a chart presented by Patrick Delaney's head of Fox Sport at a Melbourne Victory business lunch address. The chart is about A-League TV ratings and crowds.

I copied chart below from a soccer thread on 442 a site similar to ours but for soccer.

It would be interesting to view a similar chart on Super Rugby, my guess is it would show a steady decline. In part this is our problem.


2005-6 ==== 42k ============== 10,956
2006-7 ==== 56 ==== +33% ==== 12,911 ==== +18%
2007-8 ==== 70 ==== +25% ==== 14,610 ==== +13%
2008-9 ==== 64 ===== -8%===== 12,180 ==== -17%
2009-10 === 54 ==== -16%====== 9,791 ==== -20%
2010-11 === 45 ==== -16%===== 8,428 ===== -14%
2011-12 === 66 ==== +47% ===== 10,497 ==== +24%
2012-13 === 81 ==== +23% ===== 12,347 ==== +18%
2013-14 === 72 ==== -11%===== 13,025 ===== +6%
2014-15 === 62 ==== -14%===== 12,511 ====== -4%
2015-16 === 62 ====== 0 ====== 12,309 ====== -2%
2016-17 === 68 ===== +9% ==== = 12,707 ====== +2% after 112 games.

Well seeing the SA game of lions versus reds it became clear south Africa has an even bigger crowd problem than aussie conferences as lions top side but stadium more empty than any oz games I have seen to date. In some ways given game played at 2.30am probably a blessing as it was a terrible game of rugby by the reds that did nothing for the cause but just bang some more nails into the oz Rugby coffin that is doing the slow death March.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Gone nowhere for a decade

 

[Brumby Runner]

I probably disagree to generate a product that would appeal more to our domestic audience. Point scoring needs to change as the stop start nature of rugby with penalty goals worth 3 points will never create serious fan interest beyond the rusted on. Demands for more fast moving entertainment product is a given and only have to look at success of products like crickets big bash to understand that. But also yes need change in skills and quality of coaching as no one magic silver bullet as there is not one but a raft of changes that needs to be made to make rugby more appealing to domestic fans. As that is why it is not so simple and hence why requires a major rethink in approach to rugby in this country as the current perilous situation shows

Changing the points scoring is not a panacea RN. I agree that there are fewer penalty goal attempts in the NRC, but what happens. In most instances a kick for touch, a lineout and maul to score a try.

The same thing is happening organically in Super Rugby these days. As often as not (maybe moreso) teams are opting to put the ball into touch instead of taking the three points on offer. That mostly leads to a maul from the lineout and if dominant, a try. And how many posters here want the rolling maul to be banned or at least more policed to stop the inevitability of it rolling across the tryline, often with a player from the defending side getting a ten minute rest.

It seems that in the NRC, the reduction in the value of the penalty goal is directly related to the increased incidence of rolling maul tries. In Super Rugby, the same thing is already happening without the added disincentive of a reduced value for penalty goals. So where's the advantage of playing around with the scoring system? Better to retain the international scoring system at all levels of domestic rugby imo to encourage game plays and decisions to be honed for the requirements of the higher levels to be played.

 

[wamberal]

I totally agree that the NRC should be played under the Laws of the Game. I don't like the Laws all that much, but unless and until they are changed at a higher level, we should play under them. Especially if we hope to see the NRC being sold as content in other markets.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Changing the points scoring is not a panacea RN. I agree that there are fewer penalty goal attempts in the NRC, but what happens. In most instances a kick for touch, a lineout and maul to score a try.

The same thing is happening organically in Super Rugby these days. As often as not (maybe moreso) teams are opting to put the ball into touch instead of taking the three points on offer. That mostly leads to a maul from the lineout and if dominant, a try. And how many posters here want the rolling maul to be banned or at least more policed to stop the inevitability of it rolling across the tryline, often with a player from the defending side getting a ten minute rest.

It seems that in the NRC, the reduction in the value of the penalty goal is directly related to the increased incidence of rolling maul tries. In Super Rugby, the same thing is already happening without the added disincentive of a reduced value for penalty goals. So where's the advantage of playing around with the scoring system? Better to retain the international scoring system at all levels of domestic rugby imo to encourage game plays and decisions to be honed for the requirements of the higher levels to be played.

Sorry mate I love what the change in scoring has done for the nrc and I truly believe while you have the bias to go for a kick for a penalty goal which interupts the ebb and flow of the game will always be the biggest killer to get more fans interested in rugby. Rugby does not maintain the same high tempo league does and the penalty goal scoring versus tries shows by stats one of the biggest reasons particularly as much more penalties given than 20 years ago due to law Changes to try and ironically speed up the game.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

I do not watch any League these days, including SOO, after being a fan for over 30 years from the unlimited tackle days to the Super League days, and playing quite a few years at school boy level and Group level in Group 13 - not the strongest mind. When I came to Rugby seriously (as a fan) with the start of the Brumbies, after following the Wallabies for many years and the Warringah Rats in SS, I was struck with just how much more movement there was with the ball in rugby and how the ball moved with a lot more speed and structure than in League. There is no way I will ever accept that League is high tempo compared with rugby.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I totally agree that the NRC should be played under the Laws of the Game. I don't like the Laws all that much, but unless and until they are changed at a higher level, we should play under them. Especially if we hope to see the NRC being sold as content in other markets.

Nooooooooooooooo

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I do not watch any League these days, including SOO, after being a fan for over 30 years from the unlimited tackle days to the Super League days, and playing quite a few years at school boy level and Group level in Group 13 - not the strongest mind. When I came to Rugby seriously (as a fan) with the start of the Brumbies, after following the Wallabies for many years and the Warringah Rats in SS, I was struck with just how much more movement there was with the ball in rugby and how the ball moved with a lot more speed and structure than in League. There is no way I will ever accept that League is high tempo compared with rugby.

Speak to people who have been brought up on who use to watch Rugby who watch more league and they will tell you penalties in rugby kill the game for fans of other codes who want more uninterrupted action. Who the heck wants to see one player taking place kicks for 1/8th of the game. Rugby will never have a chance to compete if this is not changed along of course with all the other changes required. League is much more up tempo because they don't have the stupid stop start penalties have on rugby.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yep. The problem isn't when the ball is in play. The problem is how much the ball isnt in play.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The ARC experience shows us we must set up something financially sustainable and paying the ABC for the privilege of broadcasting the ARC was clearly not.

Yes it may have been a different story if ARC was set up more along the lines of NRC in being self financially sustaining, but we can't undo was done and have to accept we lost the benefit that if ARC had been set up properly we may be more advanced than we are now having learned how to tweak the NRC / ARC product to be a bigger and better national semi pro competition and maybe even teetering towards a professional domestic competition.

We have to just work with what we have got. We in my opinion should be working with foxtel (Foxtel at this point is only broadcast partner who will be interested until we build and develop and sustain a growing and better product) to get support for an expanded NRC 22 round semi pro national competition. Yes it would sit below whatever clusterfuck of Super Rugby exists and work with it .e.g. opportunities for players not in match day 23 squads to play perhaps for teams. Is there a better answer..yes I think so which is a Trans Tasman conference or competition as NZ offer a competition more depth than we can provide alone and quality of players to create an appealing product whilst we offer bigger commercial opportunities than NZ market for such a product assuming it can better compete against NRL and AFL which I believe with innovation like that attempted at NRC level it could.

Ambitious and risky yes. But more risky to just continue to rely on Super Rugby or moreso our SANZAAR partners as our only salvation. ARU has shown themselves to be weak as piss compared to say SARU who has fought much harder for its own interests.

I notice you don't have a club avatar: that's probably why you think the nrc is financially self sustaining.
In fact it's sustained by the same unpaid devotees who sustain the Shute shield and equivalents and who morally own every piece of intellectual property associated with rugby in oz.

 

[wamberal]

IP? What about World Rugby? They might have some sort of claim.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Morally!
Not legally.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Waiting for the day that high school in England falls on hard times and starts charging us all a liscencing fee for using the word Rugby

 

[half]

My limited understanding of how the NRC is funded is that each team needs to bring $ 400, 000 to the table each year and the cost to the ARU is nil. Not that different to the A-League just different amounts.