2014 Super Rugby: Crusaders vs Sharks (Round 14)

[Gena_ZA]

Australia did indeed win with a brilliant defence, and had a great kicking game, but were highly adaptable and they also scored their fair share of tries.

The difference is the "shawks" play 10 man rugby every bloody week. Against the Brumbies last week they had a full roster but kicked the ball 40+ times... That's just Jake White rugby in a nutshell, and it's painful viewing.

This bothers a few spectators only, not the team, not the management, not the sponsors - it wins more than it loses games an ***les.
Thought the try that Steyn made and the opportunist try from Reinagh was superb..
Live with it. It works under the current rules of the game but will not for very long as the administration makes it more of an attacking kind of game year by year.

On the flip side if it hurts so much to watch there is always the 7's circuit and that other game that looks like kids on caffeine bouncing and kicking the ball.

 

[McTallshort]

This bothers a few spectators only, not the team, not the management, not the sponsors - it wins more than it loses games an ***les.
Thought the try that Steyn made and the opportunist try from Reinagh was superb..
Live with it. It works under the current rules of the game but will not for very long as the administration makes it more of an attacking kind of game year by year.

On the flip side if it hurts so much to watch there is always the 7's circuit and that other game that looks like kids on caffeine bouncing and kicking the ball.

Amen to that, rugby is about winning you dont get points for artistic impression. Tries dont = great exciting game. Some of the best games I have watched have been try less if it doesnt float your boat there is always 7s or basketball.

 

[RoosTah]

Amen to that, rugby is about winning you dont get points for artistic impression. Tries dont = great exciting game. Some of the best games I have watched have been try less if it doesnt float your boat there is always 7s or basketball.

You do in Australia, and I've been speaking very much from a 'maximizing TV dollars for Australian rugby' perspective.

I get that in places like SA and England you just don't have competition from other sports in the way we do, but Australian rugby is being hammered by League and AFL here, and the penalty dominated games make it even harder for union to cut through.

 

[nzlizard]

riddled by errors and punctuated by an absolute lack of balls on behalf of the Crusaders (seriously, going for penalties when you're playing a team with 13 men?).

To me the issue is not how the Sharks played but how the Crusaders reacted and this ^ is pretty much it.

When you have a 2 man advantage side to side is the way to make gaps, play them to one side push the blind then swing back and try again, eventually gaps have to appear, stop kicking unless it is wide to the wingers.

Crusaders have less bonus points then any of the other kiwi teams and only the Highlanders have scored less tries, a lot of the Crusaders tries came from 2 games, so the other games certainly were duller affairs.

 

[McTallshort]

You do in Australia, and I've been speaking very much from a 'maximizing TV dollars for Australian rugby' perspective.

I get that in places like SA and England you just don't have competition from other sports in the way we do, but Australian rugby is being hammered by League and AFL here, and the penalty dominated games make it even harder for union to cut through.

No we only have Football, Cricket, Formula 1, Horse racing, Golf all of which get better viewing figures than Union. The real reason Union has lost ground in Aus is because of the way its been marketed, you could change all the rules you want and make it a regular 3 figure scoring game its still wouldnt change a thing...apart from driving away all the people who appreciate the game the way it is.

 

[nzlizard]

I get that in places like SA and England you just don't have competition from other sports in the way we do, but Australian rugby is being hammered by League and AFL here, and the penalty dominated games make it even harder for union to cut through.

Rugby has plenty of competition from Cricket, Soccer, League, hell even things like snooker and darts draws massive crowds, England is full of sports that have a huge draw car but they have a bigger fan base, international neighbors that compete at the same level and years of tradition with Rugby, Soccer and Cricket, SA would be the one I believe has less competition and they certainly have rugby right up there as a national sport.

Rugby is in a unique position in Aus, it competes of a small fan base against sports that have always been massive in Aus, I certainly remember watching more league games, NRL, State of Origin, as a kid then I did rugby - talking at a national level between soley Aus teams, not international level, not because I don't like rugby or the way Aus plays it but league has been so much more prevalent with more teams, a well organized machine and marketed better. You only have 5 super franchises and a couple are really new, then you compare to league where they have had a 16+ team comp for 30+ years.

Aussie cricket has always been strong and draws big crowds.

AFL has the strangle hold for territories that never had a rugby team.

It will take Aus teams years to get rugby back to where it was perceived to be after they won 2 world cups, what will help is results, winning the Super 15 ***le, winning more test matches, I don't give a **** how the AB's play so long as they win, sure I like watching them play running attacking rugby, but I like watching them win more.

 

[RoosTah]

No we only have Football, Cricket, Formula 1, Horse racing, Golf all of which get better viewing figures than Union. The real reason Union has lost ground in Aus is because of the way its been marketed, you could change all the rules you want and make it a regular 3 figure scoring game its still wouldnt change a thing...apart from driving away all the people who appreciate the game the way it is.

When I say competition, I mean codes of football quite specifically, because they compete for a similar demographic and type of sports fan.

I don't consider horse racing, F1, Cricket and golf to be competition in the way AFL or NRL is for union.

The difference between Aus and England is you have soccer - an intensely attritional and low scoring sport with plenty of draws - and then a footballing power vacuum that allows rugby a certain freedom that doesn't exist in Australia.

Put it to you this way: what part of F1 do you compare to Rugby? Nothing. AFL and League both represent sports that have comparable selling points to a fan that makes them competitors in a way that sports like cricket, F1, pony racing and golf cannot possibly be.

It's why in Australia we have "code wars".

 

[McTallshort]

When I say competition, I mean codes of football quite specifically, because they compete for a similar demographic and type of sports fan.

I don't consider horse racing, F1, Cricket and golf to be competition in the way AFL or NRL is for union.

The difference between Aus and England is you have soccer - an intensely attritional and low scoring sport with plenty of draws - and then a footballing power vacuum that allows rugby a certain freedom that doesn't exist in Australia.

Put it to you this way: what part of F1 do you compare to Rugby? Nothing. AFL and League both represent sports that have comparable selling points to a fan that makes them competitors in a way that sports like cricket, F1, pony racing and golf cannot possibly be.

It's why in Australia we have "code wars".

Bigger TV audiences means it draws more attention from the media which in turn draws more attention from sports sponsers and there is only so much money going round. The way the England Rugby team has been marketed in recent months has widened the appeal of the game to people more inclined to watch the odd football game and the Aussie rugby union need to learn from that and not continue with this belief that more tries mean more popularity.

 

[TRF_heineken]

When I say competition, I mean codes of football quite specifically, because they compete for a similar demographic and type of sports fan.

I don't consider horse racing, F1, Cricket and golf to be competition in the way AFL or NRL is for union.

The difference between Aus and England is you have soccer - an intensely attritional and low scoring sport with plenty of draws - and then a footballing power vacuum that allows rugby a certain freedom that doesn't exist in Australia.

Put it to you this way: what part of F1 do you compare to Rugby? Nothing. AFL and League both represent sports that have comparable selling points to a fan that makes them competitors in a way that sports like cricket, F1, pony racing and golf cannot possibly be.

It's why in Australia we have "code wars".

What if I told you that South Africa also plays league and AFL??

The thing is Rugby Union is in our Culture, and it's the fan's individual choice of what he wants to watch or not.

It's my choice not to watch league or AFL. If it's a war between codes, then it's a problem for the broadcasters, sponsors and viewers. You can't put the blame on the teams, players or coaches. They have to play within a certain framework.

If it's not appealing enough for you, then step off and go watch that other crap. But don't expect me to sympathise with you.

 

[RoosTah]

Bigger TV audiences means it draws more attention from the media which in turn draws more attention from sports sponsers and there is only so much money going round. The way the England Rugby team has been marketed in recent months has widened the appeal of the game to people more inclined to watch the odd football game and the Aussie rugby union need to learn from that and not continue with this belief that more tries mean more popularity.

Again, the problem with that simple ratings argument is that the F1 isn't a week-in week-out competition that runs over every weekend for the majority of the year, so it's not pulling people away from football games of any code in any significant way.

On marketing, I actually agree with you that the ARU could learn a lot from England Rugby in terms of marketing. The way the ARU have run the game here has been atrocious. But it is tougher in this market given the code-war atmosphere and the intense competition from other forms of football.

 

[Gena_ZA]

So the Sharks needs to play a more entertaining brand of rugby so Union in Aus has a chance to survive
Wicked

 

[McTallshort]

So the Sharks needs to play a more entertaining brand of rugby so Union in Aus has a chance to survive
Wicked

Yes! Stop being so selfish!

 

[RoosTah]

What if I told you that South Africa also plays league and AFL??

The thing is Rugby Union is in our Culture, and it's the fan's individual choice of what he wants to watch or not.

It's my choice not to watch league or AFL. If it's a war between codes, then it's a problem for the broadcasters, sponsors and viewers. You can't put the blame on the teams, players or coaches. They have to play within a certain framework.

If it's not appealing enough for you, then step off and go watch that other crap. But don't expect me to sympathise with you.

South Africa may well have AFL, but then Australia also has Gridiron, Hockey, Handball, Lacrosse and a whole lot of other sports. That's not really the point though, the point is who the big players are.

Saying "it's an individual fan's choice" may be superficially accurate, but it's also incredibly naive... Rugby has give AFL and League a century head start in terms of professionalism here, and effectively also quarantined itself from a lot of society at that same time.

Rugby is part of the culture here in a limited sense, but lacks the broad appeal and power of the NRL and AFL. Importantly for the AFL, it's "Australian Football", so it has a cultural significance that no other sport here can match because it is the only truly Australian sport here. Sure, you guys wouldn't watch it, but then why would you? It's intrinsically Australian and has no history in South Africa.

 

[TRF_heineken]

South Africa may well have AFL, but then Australia also has Gridiron, Hockey, Handball, Lacrosse and a whole lot of other sports. That's not really the point though, the point is who the big players are.

Saying "it's an individual fan's choice" may be superficially accurate, but it's also incredibly naive... Rugby has give AFL and League a century head start in terms of professionalism here, and effectively also quarantined itself from a lot of society at that same time.

Rugby is part of the culture here in a limited sense, but lacks the broad appeal and power of the NRL and AFL. Importantly for the AFL, it's "Australian Football", so it has a cultural significance that no other sport here can match because it is the only truly Australian sport here. Sure, you guys wouldn't watch it, but then why would you? It's intrinsically Australian and has no history in South Africa.

Yeah well, that's just one of the many Australian problems that doesn't concern me.

 

[McTallshort]

Again, the problem with that simple ratings argument is that the F1 isn't a week-in week-out competition that runs over every weekend for the majority of the year, so it's not pulling people away from football games of any code in any significant way.

On marketing, I actually agree with you that the ARU could learn a lot from England Rugby in terms of marketing. The way the ARU have run the game here has been atrocious. But it is tougher in this market given the code-war atmosphere and the intense competition from other forms of football.

So what do you want then? The game to change just to keep Aussie coach potatoes interested? Sorry if aussies no longer enjoy the game then thats an Aussie problem and one for the union to sort out. It might help matters when a Lions tour turns up all the super 15 franchises select their best teams to play them (like Jake White did) Lions tours have a habit of boosting the game but only if the hosting country takes it seriously.

 

[smartcooky]

When I say competition, I mean codes of football quite specifically, because they compete for a similar demographic and type of sports fan.

I don't consider horse racing, F1, Cricket and golf to be competition in the way AFL or NRL is for union.

The difference between Aus and England is you have soccer - an intensely attritional and low scoring sport with plenty of draws - and then a footballing power vacuum that allows rugby a certain freedom that doesn't exist in Australia.

Put it to you this way: what part of F1 do you compare to Rugby? Nothing. AFL and League both represent sports that have comparable selling points to a fan that makes them competitors in a way that sports like cricket, F1, pony racing and golf cannot possibly be.

It's why in Australia we have "code wars".

You see, I cannot understand how Wendyball, AFL or RL can appeal to Rugby Union fans

I find RL one dimensional - five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...

I find AFL a complete and utter bore, about five minutes of it and I find myself changing channels To me just looks life 18-a-side ping pong with no net

And as for Wendyball... it looks like a game of "kick-it-around-and -lose-it.

On the other hand, I really do enjoy watching NFL, with its sophisticated tactics and trick playes

 

[RoosTah]

Yeah well, that's just one of the many Australian problems that doesn't concern me.

Precisely. This is why I think Australia would be better off breaking from South Africa in Super Rugby. It's just come out that the SARU are colluding with Super Sport to stack the deck in its TV rights deals and is effectively screwing over NZ and Aus. So yes, it's clear SA doesn't give a stuff about the other parties in the agreement.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Precisely. This is why I think Australia would be better off breaking from South Africa in Super Rugby. It's just come out that the SARU are colluding with Super Sport to stack the deck in its TV rights deals and is effectively screwing over NZ and Aus. So yes, it's clear SA doesn't give a stuff about the other parties in the agreement.

Don't let the door hit you on your ass on your way out.

 

[RoosTah]

So what do you want then? The game to change just to keep Aussie coach potatoes interested? Sorry if aussies no longer enjoy the game then thats an Aussie problem and one for the union to sort out. It might help matters when a Lions tour turns up all the super 15 franchises select their best teams to play them (like Jake White did) Lions tours have a habit of boosting the game but only if the hosting country takes it seriously.

What are you talking about? All those Lions tour matches v Super sides all sold out irrespective of the squads...

As for what I want, I reckon RUPA are right on the money with their suggestion that Australia and NZ form their own round robin Super Rugby Comp and just play the South Africans in the knock out stages. The logistics of having the SA teams involved makes Super Rugby uncompetitive for TV dollars when compared with the NRL and AFL, and thus dramatically weakens its earning power.

 

[McTallshort]

You see, I cannot understand how Wendyball, AFL or RL can appeal to Rugby Union fans

I find RL one dimensional - five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...five turns in possession, then kick the ball away...

I find AFL a complete and utter bore, about five minutes of it and I find myself changing channels To me just looks life 18-a-side ping pong with no net

And as for Wendyball... it looks like a game of "kick-it-around-and -lose-it.

On the other hand, I really do enjoy watching NFL, with its sophisticated tactics and trick playes

Thats just it he isnt on about Rugby Union fans hes on about floating fans that tend to follow what in at that time. Fair weather fans if you like.