M
myusernameisprettybland
Guest
I couldn't find a way to respond directly to St. Helens blog on the main site so I've started a new topic for discussion. I don't want to sound combative, but to be honest with you your blog about the RLWC is hugely misinformed. I think I can understand where you're coming from looking in from the outside but I'm going to provide the Australian perspective.
It's not that people have developed a degree of arrogance based on our position on the world stage, its that most games in the tournament involve one or two third rate sides which they don't have a connection to. If anything, Australians want more competitive international league. Just look at the 2003 RWC, held in Australia. The competition was much tighter and crowds flocked to see good rugby - no matter who played. The RWC was a spectacle, the RLWC is a farce.
The tournament is far too lopsided, and the pool stages virtually guarantee an easy run into the semi finals for the top 3 teams, so long as they beat PNG. With such a small global market for league, the quality of the competition is greatly diminished. The divide in quality has turned the tournament into a joke, and the general public have largely shied away accordingly. This lack of interest was even reflected in the Australia vs. NZ game at the SFS, which (if you looked closely) was far from its 45,000 capacity.
Ticket prices have also been a major contributing factor. When you can't offer a world-class product, you shouldn't charge world-class prices. With most people struggling in the current economic climate, its very hard to justify prices so high for the many one-sided affairs this tournament throws up. You used the example of NZ vs. PNG at Skilled Stadium on the Gold Coast. Ticket prices for that game were $45AUD for adults and $32AUD for juniors (before booking, food/beverage and transport costs are factored in). This is just another of the many blunders by the World Cup administration.
The third problem is that rugby league in Australia really survives on parochialism alone. There are few neutral fans at a standard round rugby league match. NRL fixtures generate interest because the clubs have been firmly entrenched in their local communities for generations. One of the best manifestations of this was the miserable failure of the Northern Eagles venture. The residents of the Central Coast wouldn't support a team which had been crudely transplanted into their community and loyal Manly fans protested about their loss of a local team.
Further, I never thought I'd be defending Gould (he is a very negative, annoying league personality) but I feel you're being a little harsh. His criticism of Ganson wasn't some bizarre form of xenophobia or elitism. If you had been watching the Australian coverage of the NRL this season (it's evident you probably haven't), he has been generally critical of the video refereeing system and the Australian officials themselves.... Yes, Shane Hayne included. He even blasted the robotic style of play from Australia and New Zealand in the Sun-Herald (the Sunday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald) this week and claimed that the Samoa/Tonga game was a more entertaining fixture. He encouraged people to support these games. Also, the reason why the Australian media contingent were focusing on the "heroic" and "brave" PNG rather than the bumbling English is because the media are trying to play up the tightness of the competition in the face of dismal showings for fixtures involving PNG. I think this really negates your point about the media failing to promote matches which don't involve Australia.
Far from being arrogant/ignorant of Australia's persistent dominance, the lack of interest from the public comes from the mediocre and lopsided nature of international rugby league and the exorbitant prices being charged. Not everyone is as diehard a rugby league supporter as yourself and don't need to subject themselves to an expensive, time wasting and poor quality Samoa vs. Russia fixture in your "spoiled" World Cup. I find it startling that as a self professed journalist you are able to jump to such uninformed and largely incorrect conclusions.
It's not that people have developed a degree of arrogance based on our position on the world stage, its that most games in the tournament involve one or two third rate sides which they don't have a connection to. If anything, Australians want more competitive international league. Just look at the 2003 RWC, held in Australia. The competition was much tighter and crowds flocked to see good rugby - no matter who played. The RWC was a spectacle, the RLWC is a farce.
The tournament is far too lopsided, and the pool stages virtually guarantee an easy run into the semi finals for the top 3 teams, so long as they beat PNG. With such a small global market for league, the quality of the competition is greatly diminished. The divide in quality has turned the tournament into a joke, and the general public have largely shied away accordingly. This lack of interest was even reflected in the Australia vs. NZ game at the SFS, which (if you looked closely) was far from its 45,000 capacity.
Ticket prices have also been a major contributing factor. When you can't offer a world-class product, you shouldn't charge world-class prices. With most people struggling in the current economic climate, its very hard to justify prices so high for the many one-sided affairs this tournament throws up. You used the example of NZ vs. PNG at Skilled Stadium on the Gold Coast. Ticket prices for that game were $45AUD for adults and $32AUD for juniors (before booking, food/beverage and transport costs are factored in). This is just another of the many blunders by the World Cup administration.
The third problem is that rugby league in Australia really survives on parochialism alone. There are few neutral fans at a standard round rugby league match. NRL fixtures generate interest because the clubs have been firmly entrenched in their local communities for generations. One of the best manifestations of this was the miserable failure of the Northern Eagles venture. The residents of the Central Coast wouldn't support a team which had been crudely transplanted into their community and loyal Manly fans protested about their loss of a local team.
Further, I never thought I'd be defending Gould (he is a very negative, annoying league personality) but I feel you're being a little harsh. His criticism of Ganson wasn't some bizarre form of xenophobia or elitism. If you had been watching the Australian coverage of the NRL this season (it's evident you probably haven't), he has been generally critical of the video refereeing system and the Australian officials themselves.... Yes, Shane Hayne included. He even blasted the robotic style of play from Australia and New Zealand in the Sun-Herald (the Sunday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald) this week and claimed that the Samoa/Tonga game was a more entertaining fixture. He encouraged people to support these games. Also, the reason why the Australian media contingent were focusing on the "heroic" and "brave" PNG rather than the bumbling English is because the media are trying to play up the tightness of the competition in the face of dismal showings for fixtures involving PNG. I think this really negates your point about the media failing to promote matches which don't involve Australia.
Far from being arrogant/ignorant of Australia's persistent dominance, the lack of interest from the public comes from the mediocre and lopsided nature of international rugby league and the exorbitant prices being charged. Not everyone is as diehard a rugby league supporter as yourself and don't need to subject themselves to an expensive, time wasting and poor quality Samoa vs. Russia fixture in your "spoiled" World Cup. I find it startling that as a self professed journalist you are able to jump to such uninformed and largely incorrect conclusions.
