2014 Super Rugby: Crusaders vs Sharks (Round 14)

[RoosTah]

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.

They bring in the advertising dollars if you can catch their attention long enough to get them emotionally invested.

 

[Tony Manx]

OMG.....stop feuding and make up!!!

Who wants to see SA thrown into the rugby wilderness and into the hands of Wray and his accolytes trying to get the arrogant barstewards any more involved in European rugby than they already are!!!!!

 

[RoosTah]

OMG.....stop feuding and make up!!!

Who wants to see SA thrown into the rugby wilderness and into the hands of Wray and his accolytes trying to get the arrogant barstewards any more involved in European rugby than they already are!!!!!

It'll be interesting to see what happens next now that it's become clear South Africa is screwing us and NZ: "Super Sport paid $10 million for 33 Currie Cup games in 2013, compared with $10.9 million for 125 Super Rugby games. That is despite the Currie Cup attracting 18 million viewers, 23 million fewer – or less than half – per year than Super Rugby's 44 million in South Africa."

Looks very dodgy...

 

[SomeOke]

The overwhelming majority of South Africa isn't interested in rugby at all, and I've always felt England doesn't perform as well as they should at union because they are spread so thin in terms of all the other sports that they pour money into. This isn't an issue of sports saturation.

The problem I have with league and 7's is that the games themselves lack depth, if every game has 10 tries it becomes tired. "Exciting" rugby is all a matter of context - if every game in super rugby had 8 tries it would soon become the norm and games that would stand out were those with 15 tries. Rugby is a thinking game, with lots of rules, angles and methods of playing, because of this it can be very intimidating for new viewers, it's not something you can just watch and enjoy (like soccer) meaning those who do enjoy it where either raised on it, or forced themselves to watch until they enjoyed it.

Brilliant tries are so special in union because they are so difficult to pull off, if they happened often they would lose their appeal. Union will almost always be a niche sport because of it's barriers to entry but it rewards those who put in the time by being the most interesting and in-depth sport there is. In other words if rugby changes too much to make it more palatable for the new viewer it will lose what makes it special.

Anyway it's nice to have an Aussie who consistently posts so I'm in no means belittling your opinion, just trying to inform you on why we like union as it is.

 

[RoosTah]

The overwhelming majority of South Africa isn't interested in rugby at all, and I've always felt England doesn't perform as well as they should at union because they are spread so thin in terms of all the other sports that they pour money into. This isn't an issue of sports saturation.

The problem I have with league and 7's is that the games themselves lack depth, if every game has 10 tries it becomes tired. "Exciting" rugby is all a matter of context - if every game in super rugby had 8 tries it would soon become the norm and games that would stand out were those with 15 tries. Rugby is a thinking game, with lots of rules, angles and methods of playing, because of this it can be very intimidating for new viewers, it's not something you can just watch and enjoy (like soccer) meaning those who do enjoy it where either raised on it, or forced themselves to watch until they enjoyed it.

Brilliant tries are so special in union because they are so difficult to pull off, if they happened often they would lose their appeal. Union will almost always be a niche sport because of it's barriers to entry but it rewards those who put in the time by being the most interesting and in-depth sport there is. In other words if rugby changes too much to make it more palatable for the new viewer it will lose what makes it special.

Anyway it's nice to have an Aussie who consistently posts so I'm in no means belittling your opinion, just trying to inform you on why we like union as it is.

I understand that rugby is in reality confined largely to the white population and the wealthier blacks, but it still has a very solid base that we just don't have in Australia. Although I definitely agree with you on England - in terms of resources they should be as formidable as the All Blacks. But for them, the club scene makes that cohesion at the national level tricky.

On League and tries, I actually agree. But this is where the fundamental misunderstanding is: it's not the lack of tries per se in Rugby that people complain about here, it's performances like that of the Crusaders we saw on the weekend; teams "not having a go" by just going for the easy points via penalties. You get low scoring games in League, and the can be great spectacles. The difference lies in the fact that both teams are always attacking with everything they've got. They've eliminated the kicking duel and made penalty kicks and drop goals only really appealing in very tight matches.

That said, I actually like scrums, line outs and rucks; I like the fact that Union is a constant battle for possession, but that doesn't mean I'm not frustrated when teams just play for penalties and kick the ball away every chance they get.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It'll be interesting to see what happens next now that it's become clear South Africa is screwing us and NZ

Maybe you should go and read some of the other threads on this forum first.

We aren't screwing anybody. Australia have been screwing us! They bring in the least amount of viewers for Super Rugby, yet they expect to get an equal share in the profits.

South Africa brings in more than 50% of the profits through broadcasting. Yet in the past we just smiled and took what we got. Supersport is South Africa's broadcaster like FOX and Sky. But Supersport broadcasts not only in South Africa, it broadcasts to the entire continent! We actually try to expand rugby to the viewing masses out there not familiar with the sport...

What have Australia done lately to expand viewership? had a touchies tournament on the beach??

 

[RoosTah]

Maybe you should go and read some of the other threads on this forum first.

We aren't screwing anybody. Australia have been screwing us! They bring in the least amount of viewers for Super Rugby, yet they expect to get an equal share in the profits.

South Africa brings in more than 50% of the profits through broadcasting. Yet in the past we just smiled and took what we got. Supersport is South Africa's broadcaster like FOX and Sky. But Supersport broadcasts not only in South Africa, it broadcasts to the entire continent! We actually try to expand rugby to the viewing masses out there not familiar with the sport...

What have Australia done lately to expand viewership? had a touchies tournament on the beach??

So you're acknowledging that SARU and SuperSport are colluding to allow the SARU to sneakily avoid giving the 50% of TV revenue each partner is supposed to give?

As for expanding viewership, it's pretty hard when there's only 2 days a week of games in prime time hours, it's all on pay TV and we have a big chunk of games against South African teams that people here aren't all that interested in watching. As I said, you guys just don't get how much more complex things are here.

 

[TRF_heineken]

So you're acknowledging that SARU and SuperSport are colluding to allow the SARU to sneakily avoid giving the 50% of TV revenue each partner is supposed to give?

We are supposed to get 50% of the tv revenue but only get 33%!! What would be fair is if each nation only gets a share of the profits by the percentage of the revenue they bring in. Then we'll see how quickly Australia starts to make plans. Perhaps then All our star players will actually stay in South Africa and not go to play in Japan or NH, because our currency is up to ****!

There's no colluding. SARU HAS TO work with Supersport. The unions also have to work with Supersport, just like ARU have to work with FOX. without the broadcaster, only the fans in the stadiums will see the games, and then Australia will in any case be royally ****ed!

 

[SomeOke]

So you're acknowledging that SARU and SuperSport are colluding to allow the SARU to sneakily avoid giving the 50% of TV revenue each partner is supposed to give?

As for expanding viewership, it's pretty hard when there's only 2 days a week of games in prime time hours, it's all on pay TV and we have a big chunk of games against South African teams that people here aren't all that interested in watching. As I said, you guys just don't get how much more complex things are here.

You are right of course that things are more complicated in Aus. I just don't think "negative" South African rugby is too blame for lack of viewership if you make union more "leaguelike" you're essentially just removing the reason for union to exist in the first place.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I'm actually all for SA joining the English league, it would remove the stigma of "foreign based" players and would give the players the money they deserve without removing them from national contention, as well as fixing the whole time-zone issue. Then we could have a "champions league" of rugby with all the best teams in the world playing a group stages/knockout competition. Could be pretty awesome, unfortunately I don't know how that would affect the national side.

 

[Tony Manx]

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I'm actually all for SA joining the English league, it would remove the stigma of "foreign based" players and would give the players the money they deserve without removing them from national contention, as well as fixing the whole time-zone issue. Then we could have a "champions league" of rugby with all the best teams in the world playing a group stages/knockout competition. Could be pretty awesome, unfortunately I don't know how that would affect the national side.

May the Lord have pity on your soul..................do not even mention it as a joke!!!

 

[SomeOke]

May the Lord have pity on your soul..................do not even mention it as a joke!!!

Haha why are you so against this? Is it just the saffers are arrogant thing? I think it would probably be good for NH rugby in the long run.

 

[Tony Manx]

Haha why are you so against this? Is it just the saffers are arrogant thing? I think it would probably be good for NH rugby in the long run.

I do not like the idea of having away matches thousands and thousands of miles away where real fans have no chance of supporting their team and I do not like the idea of creating new competitions and doing away with years and years of tradition and rivalries all purely and just so that a few people can make money. Just because the SH travel and are happy to travel so that they can get some real club competition, does not excuse creating more travel for other countries!!

We have a hairy number of South Africans on the Isle of Man..................I will say no more!

 

[McTallshort]

Maybe you should go and read some of the other threads on this forum first.

We aren't screwing anybody. Australia have been screwing us! They bring in the least amount of viewers for Super Rugby, yet they expect to get an equal share in the profits.

South Africa brings in more than 50% of the profits through broadcasting. Yet in the past we just smiled and took what we got. Supersport is South Africa's broadcaster like FOX and Sky. But Supersport broadcasts not only in South Africa, it broadcasts to the entire continent! We actually try to expand rugby to the viewing masses out there not familiar with the sport...

What have Australia done lately to expand viewership? had a touchies tournament on the beach??

Steady Heineken, the bloke sees conspiracy everywhere, think he has some sort of complex about betrayal.

 

[Gena_ZA]

I would just fancy to altogether omit Aus from SR.
2 years and Union will be dead without SA and NZ, then don't cry

 

[TRF_heineken]

I would just fancy to altogether omit Aus from SR.
2 years and Union will be dead without SA and NZ, then don't cry

+1

For a country that doesn't have a domestic tournament he's forgetting that NZ and SA can just continue on their merry way without the Super Rugby in totality. The Currie Cup and ITM Cup provides enough games and observation to keep our national teams strong.

What will Australia do without the SR??? join Japan's league??

 

[RoosTah]

I would just fancy to altogether omit Aus from SR.
2 years and Union will be dead without SA and NZ, then don't cry

Super Rugby would die with just SA and NZ. The TV dollars it brings in are already chicken feed in reality, so removing NZ's only viewable time slot partner would kill the revenue there in particular.

 

[RoosTah]

+1

For a country that doesn't have a domestic tournament he's forgetting that NZ and SA can just continue on their merry way without the Super Rugby in totality. The Currie Cup and ITM Cup provides enough games and observation to keep our national teams strong.

What will Australia do without the SR??? join Japan's league??

We're launching a domestic comp this year as a matter of fact. RUPA has gone for the NZ-Aus super rugby format because it's the most commercially and logistically rational.

 

[FlukeArtist]

You are right of course that things are more complicated in Aus. I just don't think "negative" South African rugby is too blame for lack of viewership if you make union more "leaguelike" you're essentially just removing the reason for union to exist in the first place.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I'm actually all for SA joining the English league, it would remove the stigma of "foreign based" players and would give the players the money they deserve without removing them from national contention, as well as fixing the whole time-zone issue. Then we could have a "champions league" of rugby with all the best teams in the world playing a group stages/knockout competition. Could be pretty awesome, unfortunately I don't know how that would affect the national side.

Can't agree with your first point. Unless you are referring to the points system, then I am wholly in agreement of making it "more league-like"

I agree here; I think NZ-Aus should carry on Super Rugby with Japan and the PIs
SA can join England.

Frankly I think it would bring back some of the mystique that has been missing from the NZ-SA clashes since the whole Tri-Nations concept was launched.
Familiarity breeds contempt and all that...

I think a change would be great.

 

[nzlizard]

For a country that doesn't have a domestic tournament he's forgetting that NZ and SA can just continue on their merry way without the Super Rugby in totality. The Currie Cup and ITM Cup provides enough games and observation to keep our national teams strong.

While we can both carry on our merry way it would be seriously detrimental to both our causes for that to happen.

Just been a realist here, but ITM / Currie cup comps are the feeders that promote to super level, they give both our countries a 2nd level of talent exposure that helps develop, nurture and retain up and coming talent. We would lose so much by having just 1 tier of development.

 

[smartcooky]

While we can both carry on our merry way it would be seriously detrimental to both our causes for that to happen.

Just been a realist here, but ITM / Currie cup comps are the feeders that promote to super level, they give both our countries a 2nd level of talent exposure that helps develop, nurture and retain up and coming talent. We would lose so much by having just 1 tier of development.

Aussies should remember that the NZRU saved their sorry arses back in the 1970's and 80's when the game was almost gone from the wide-brown land through no money in the game. poor support and the fact that no-one wanted to play them.