Cockerill has it bang on...

[dirty harry]

Richard Cockerill: Premiership has lost its 'bite'

Premiership-winning former Leicester Tigers boss Richard Cockerill says England's top-flight competition has lost its "bite".

www.bbc.co.uk

I couldnt agree more, I would add maybe I'm old and rugby has moved on from me, but it seems to have moved on from a lot of people in a very bad way.

No longer is rugby gladiatorial, a spectacle, or a fierce battle, it's been sanitised, and with names on shirts, we are one step away from footballesque style dramatisation.

Rugby has lost its global share, and is dying IMHO, European rugby was arm wrestled away for financial reasons, and the premiership has suffered for it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What a donkey, the premiership has been great the last few seasons - he's just spouting off because no one wanted to hire him

"Game's gone soft" - Old man, shouting at clouds

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Saintjay]

Richard Cockerill: Premiership has lost its 'bite'

Premiership-winning former Leicester Tigers boss Richard Cockerill says England's top-flight competition has lost its "bite".

www.bbc.co.uk

I couldnt agree more, I would add maybe I'm old and rugby has moved on from me, but it seems to have moved on from a lot of people in a very bad way.

No longer is rugby gladiatorial, a spectacle, or a fierce battle, it's been sanitised, and with names on shirts, we are one step away from footballesque style dramatisation.

Rugby has lost its global share, and is dying IMHO, European rugby was arm wrestled away for financial reasons, and the premiership has suffered for it.

Names on shirts is a good thing. There's little point in comparing football with rugby. One's a global popular billion dollar sport the others not. Rugby doesn't hold any moral high ground over football either.

 

[BPM]

What a donkey, the premiership has been great the last few seasons - he's just spouting off because no one wanted to hire him

"Game's gone soft" - Old man, shouting at clouds

Pretty much. The only thing I agree on is that the 'jeopardy' element has gone with no relegation. However, with such a competitive league, 8 of the clubs can still conceivably make the top 4 which creates a different dynamic.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Names on shirts is a good thing. There's little point in comparing football with rugby. One's a global popular billion dollar sport the others not. Rugby doesn't hold any moral high ground over football either.

I really don't get why people get upset by names on jerseys. As far as I can see, it makes the game more accessible and engaging, with no possible downsides, particularly given that the alternative is often the bizarre situation where a side has XV players all called *Insert Sponsor's Name Here*. If anything, in this day and age, I think it makes rugby look amateurish not to have them there.

Objections strike me as gatekeeping, along the lines of "the uninitiated shouldn't be allowed to enjoy our game if they don't know who the players are".

 

[BrokenWing]

If you need to read the players name on the players shirt to find out who they are, you're doing something wrong.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If you need to read the players name on the players shirt to find out who they are, you're doing something wrong.

Why? I'd say I could name about 20% of premiership players by their face and wouldn't do much better in the Top 14.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If you need to read the players name on the players shirt to find out who they are, you're doing something wrong.

That's such a stupid statement. Especially when you are just watching teams you don't know that well.

 

[Saintjay]

Tigers should still have letters. Games gone softer.

 

[Amiga500]

I really don't get why people get upset by names on jerseys. As far as I can see, it makes the game more accessible and engaging, with no possible downsides,

Aside from the cost to the teams of doing it of course.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I don't think Cockers has said anything contentious there.

The lack of jeopardy in the sense of no relegation and the ease of getting into the Champions Cup is just fact. The league is competitive which is great, but the ante's definitely ramped up when there's something tangible at stake.

That it's now more family oriented entertainment occasion than bitter inter-club spats is unarguable.

Saying it's not the same but it is entertainment and a good game of rugby pretty much sums it up.

You suspect he'd prefer all players to be born within 10 miles of their club and for each game to have 20 scrums and five decent fights. But he's not really saying the game is better or worse - just different.

 

[Jimbo]

I don't think Cockers has said anything contentious there.

The lack of jeopardy in the sense of no relegation and the ease of getting into the Champions Cup is just fact. The league is competitive which is great, but the ante's definitely ramped up when there's something tangible at stake.

That it's now more family oriented entertainment occasion than bitter inter-club spats is unarguable.

Saying it's not the same but it is entertainment and a good game of rugby pretty much sums it up.

You suspect he'd prefer all players to be born within 10 miles of their club and for each game to have 20 scrums and five decent fights. But he's not really saying the game is better or worse - just different.

Yep and objectively he is right, I'm not anti all the gladiatorial sentiments , I keep hearing but it the cold light of day with concussion law suits something had to change and even then it may not be enough, not to mention the impacts are probably greater in many ways due to the physical specimens now involved., this is the game in general though not specific to the prem.

 

[RedruthRFC]

If you need to read the players name on the players shirt to find out who they are, you're doing something wrong.

You've just described me watching a Premiership match. What am I doing wrong?

Aside from the cost to the teams of doing it of course.

I wasn't suggesting that the under eights should be doing it on a Sunday morning, or even "semi pro" teams. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see why the cost of doing this should be too onerous for a professional side and it could be considered an investment in their future.

 

[Amiga500]

and it could be considered an investment in their future.

Uh, why?

Surely you don't believe it makes the game more "accessible"?

Do you really think people decide to watch a match based on names on players' backs?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Do you really think people decide to watch a match based on names on players' backs?

That's reductio ad absurdum as I suspect you are aware. At no point have I said that this is some sort of silver bullet, but I don't see why it wouldn't be a small step in the right direction to improve viewer engagement. Given the low price point, my guess is that expenditure would be worth it, but it is only that - a guess. Feel free to explain why you disagree.

 

[dirty harry]

So,, names on shirts...

It just wreaks. I'm not saying only real fans know players, but the idea shirts on backs is more 'inclusive to a wider audience' is laughable. Its akin to modern movies being designed to modern audiences hahaha.

Names on shirts stinks of modern marketting, just like slogans lol. Team of us, we're all in, team of one, and all together generic marketting ideals.

The idea, names on shirts will create 187 million pound shirt sales, and CR7 type branding in rugby is laughable.

iMHO its selling out 100 years of tradition. It's one thing to modernise, and optimise revenue, but rugby seems 20 years behind the cutting edge, with a view of mimicking others and not building it's own culture.

Reason number 148 as to why its losing global share in numerous stats, participation, and viewership being the key ones.

Rugby is becoming more and more niche, insular and desperate, and things like this compound the problem, it should be leaning into tradition, simplifying and helping increase its attractiveness instead of peaking over the fence...

 

[dirty harry]

Re Cockerils comments on entertainment.

Everyone sit back and consider their most memorable games, and moments from the last 30 years...

This recent RWC come to mind? How about last seasons Premiership semis? The URC opening round 2022? The champions cup final of Leinster v La Rochelle?

No, thought not.

Anyone consider the current England squad as containing more stars than the 2011 squad?

No, thought not.

So why is rugby, as it develops into a more professional, safe, and 'inclusive' sport losing audience, participants and become more and more forgettable?

 

[Saintjay]

Re Cockerils comments on entertainment.

Everyone sit back and consider their most memorable games, and moments from the last 30 years...

This recent RWC come to mind? How about last seasons Premiership semis? The URC opening round 2022? The champions cup final of Leinster v La Rochelle?

No, thought not.

Anyone consider the current England squad as containing more stars than the 2011 squad?

No, thought not.

So why is rugby, as it develops into a more professional, safe, and 'inclusive' sport losing audience, participants and become more and more forgettable?

From the 2011 England squad take out the 2003 players and and players still playing. Joe Public wouldn't have a clue but they can probably name more of the 2019 England team. It also depends on your definition of stars.

Six nations and Rwc tv audiences are increasing. Places like Japan holding a world cup. Womens rugby considerably improving.

Society and values change. Less played in state schools, parents concerns over safety. What's the other option make it less safe and inclusive. Go back to the so called good old days where Manu can batter Ashton in a derby game. Buck Shelford can play with one ball and not one with Gilbert on it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Re Cockerils comments on entertainment.

Everyone sit back and consider their most memorable games, and moments from the last 30 years...

This recent RWC come to mind? How about last seasons Premiership semis? The URC opening round 2022? The champions cup final of Leinster v La Rochelle?

No, thought not.

Anyone consider the current England squad as containing more stars than the 2011 squad?

No, thought not.

So why is rugby, as it develops into a more professional, safe, and 'inclusive' sport losing audience, participants and become more and more forgettable?

Partly because there are so many other ways spend leisure time now, partly because of concussion, partly because of loads of other things - complicated rules, TV overage, interminable politics etc - and a really big one is the lack of novelty, players get flogged playing* the same old time and again - Leicester v Leinster anyone? Are we as excited to see the Boks as we once were? Not really as we've seen most of their players in the URC and Europe.

I was reflecting on the 6N the other day. Almost a sacrilegious thought, but while it turns out some great matches (and its share of dross) the whole concept and presentation and hype just feels a bit stale. For me at any rate, not the highlight it once was.