Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby

[TRF_stormer2010]

In response to @TRF_heineken's post.

Its less of a 'thing' than it was, more so for our parents but the Currie Cup was the pinnacle of rugby in this country in the isolation years and that really pushed the rivalries. Its gone backwards fast and is now a non-entity after the expansion of SR. I still think the way forward is for SA's franchizes to be taken out of the hands of the unions and then either placed under central control of SARU or (my preference) sold off. I can imagine the likes of our billionaires like Rupert, Mouton, Wiese, Ackerman or companies like Steinhoff etc greatly investing in SR if they had input. then split SR into two tiers and bring down the length of the tournament if not the amount of games. The Currie Cup is used as the determining factor for which teams get into the 4 places for SA for SR.

As for the Kings, if we have a 'state of origin' type Kings side:

1 Lizo Gqoboka
2 Bandise Maku
3
4 Jacques Potgieter
5 Steven Sykes
6 Siya Kolisi
7 Sikhumbuza Notshe
8 Dewald Potgieter
9 Rory Kockott
10 Elton Jantjies
11 Lwazi Mvovo
12 Jan Serfontein
13 Lionel Mapoe
14 Sergeal Petersen
15 Johan Goosen

 

[Nubiwan]

Too diluted

i said I feared this in another thread, and here we have a post with concerns. I've watched super rugby since it became available on a regular basis to me about 15 years ago. I think it was still Super 12 back then.

i will just say this. I have not bothered to watch any games involving the sun wolves or Jaguars this season. Not even sure I spelled those names right, which says enough.

The competition format was just fine at the outset, and I think the problem with dilution became apparent with the introduction of the team from Perth a few years back. The recent 'expansion' has not made sense at all.

What at bothers me most is that there seems to be an awful lot of weeks were a team I might follow, does not play. The travel schedule simply does not lend itself to a regular weekly format of games. Couple that with games involving the jags or wolves, and those that are played, lack the interest.

This past weekend the key match up was Crusader v Chiefs. After that, the Brumbies v Reds is typically a decent contest. After that, not sure there was another 80 minutes that interested me. That's not to say good games do not exist, but I only have so much time to take in a game, on delay where I live.

On attendance, I have always been surprised how super rugby has lasted this long in fairness. With the exception of these bigger derby style games, I am at odds to think of teams who have had big attendances at all games. Crusaders and highlanders and probably Chiefs are the exception, in my opinion. They a indeed draw the crowds wherever they play.

too often we are watching games with what seems like 5-10,000 fans in stadia well capable of holding 5 to 6 times that number, and it simply looks amateur. A shame, because the rugby is often high caliber. as an example, the Hurricanes won the super league and I'd bet they had many home matches that same season with fewer than one quarter capacity filling their stadium.

stuff like this should be addresses before expansion?

 

[unrated]

Just saw a statistic that Super rugby has the best average attendance figures of any rugby league in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures

 

[riffraff]

Just saw a statistic that Super rugby has the best average attendance figures of any rugby league in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures

Data for SR on the Wikipedia page is from 2013. It would help if they compared the most recent years for all sports. It's Wikipedia, though, so anyone with enough initiative can fix that.

 

[unrated]

Data for SR on the Wikipedia page is from 2013. It would help if they compared the most recent years for all sports. It's Wikipedia, though, so anyone with enough initiative can fix that.

Yes i do have to agree. Wikipedia is an unreliable source

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yes i do have to agree. Wikipedia is an unreliable source

Then don't use it...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Anyone know the difference between average attendance in the final year of super 12 and this year/last year?

 

[unrated]

1.just because there are international rivalries doesn't mean that club rivalries will follow suit,
2. you can't tell me that that Super Rugby has anywhere near the tradition that exists in Europe..

3..honestly who cares if the players grew up supporting the club or not, are you telling me that these players are so unprofessional that they will not give their best effort unless they are playing for a club they idolized growing up? then we are watching a lot of crap rugby i guess and the first couple of years in Super Rugby must have been real crap because those clubs didn't exist.

1. Why not? In South Africa there is intense rivalries towards New Zealand teams. To use the Crusaders and Sharks as an Example. We (the sharks) have no personal rivlary against rugby clubs in Christchurch but we have a rivlary against the crusaders because South Africa has always had a rivlary with New Zealand. Super Rugby is a International league and its a watered down version of the rugby championship so its still a SA team vs NZ team or SA team vs Aus team.

2. Yes some clubs in Europe has a longer history than us. We have different traditions to them. Not one tradition is better than the other thats really a matter of perspective. Tradition is also a word that can include many definitions. One can argue that recently Europe has developed a tradition of buying players and the SH has been forced to develop players.

3. No i believe as professional players they will give their all for any team they play for. The point i was trying to make is that these players that are imported does not have a strong sense or rivalry like the local players. The Toulouse players will have that urge to beat a team from another region like Racing but the foreign players will just have another game to play at their best possible level. And with all the foreign players going to the top 14 and other leagues i get a feeling that their rivalries will not have the same value as a team made up out of say just french players.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't use it...

Information on this subject is hard to come by. Beggars cant be choosers.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

i will just say this. I have not bothered to watch any games involving the sun wolves or Jaguars this season. Not even sure I spelled those names right, which says enough.

Mind if i ask you why? Have you watched the Cheetahs, Force, Reds?
Because if what you are suggestion is cutting it back to 12 teams Jaguares wouldn't be in the bottom 3, despite an appalling season. I'm the first to criticize the team, but there is criticism and there is bias. Even if i'd love to forget about it, i must admit the Sun Wolves vs Jaguares was 10x more attractive to watch than say, Reds vs Force or Cheetahs vs Kings.
If you want cut by current level, i'm fine with that, just do not cut by name.

What at bothers me most is that there seems to be an awful lot of weeks were a team I might follow, does not play. The travel schedule simply does not lend itself to a regular weekly format of games. Couple that with games involving the jags or wolves, and those that are played, lack the interest.

2 byes for a team in 17 rounds... doesn't sound a lot to me.

And it's easy to make a comment like that with tomorrow's newspaper, but lets not forget the phrase "we might have created a monster" was used when referring to Jaguares by non-argentine media before the first round.
I don't have the ratings at hand, but i am pretty sure a lot of non argentines watched our first 3 games. The interest was there, we just blew it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I used to follow Super rugby a fair bit, but I just don't bother now as its too convoluted. A couple of things for sure though; pop up franchises here and there simply won't get the emotional buy in - that only comes with time. And it adds nothing to the appeal to play in front of small crowds in big stadiums - a 10,000 crowd in a 10,000 seater stadium and the place is rocking. 10,000 in Eden Park and the place is dead. Which would encourage people to go back?

And another thing, the lack of relegation is a problem. Spectators will back their team wholeheartedly when there's something at stake, whichever end of the table that is, but they're not stupid and won't pay to watch dead rubbers. As I say I don't follow it any more so tell me if I'm talking b*llocks on that one.

Or maybe we're just all over thinking this and its simply that there's too much running in the name of an "entertaining product" and not enough scrums and mauling. Yes, that would be it.

 

[saulan]

Anyone know the difference between average attendance in the final year of super 12 and this year/last year?

I couldn't do that, but I searched and got the best that I could find. This is a comparison of SA team attendance in 2007 (second year of Super 14 and this year so far). Keep in mind that the Sharks and Bulls were the top two teams and contested the final in 2007:
(team-2007 figure- 2016 figure)
Bulls-41,259-17,921
Cheetahs-22,464-7,780
Lions-18,727-19,808
Sharks-38,039-23,591
Stormers-29,182-26,992

 

[Nubiwan]

Mind if i ask you why? Have you watched the Cheetahs, Force, Reds?
Because if what you are suggestion is cutting it back to 12 teams Jaguares wouldn't be in the bottom 3, despite an appalling season. I'm the first to criticize the team, but there is criticism and there is bias. Even if i'd love to forget about it, i must admit the Sun Wolves vs Jaguares was 10x more attractive to watch than say, Reds vs Force or Cheetahs vs Kings.
If you want cut by current level, i'm fine with that, just do not cut by name.


2 byes for a team in 17 rounds... doesn't sound a lot to me.

And it's easy to make a comment like that with tomorrow's newspaper, but lets not forget the phrase "we might have created a monster" was used when referring to Jaguares by non-argentine media before the first round.
I don't have the ratings at hand, but i am pretty sure a lot of non argentines watched our first 3 games. The interest was there, we just blew it.

Don't really have a great answer other than I find the SA coverage (at commentator level) somewhat bland at times. That and the fact most of the matches are played in front of empty stadiums. I will watch any New Zealand team taking on an SA side in SA, but rarely take in the SA derby games. Dunno why.

To be perfectly honest, I have found myself more attracted or drawn to the Australasia crossover and derby games over the years, simply because the fixtures are more attractive, and there are larger crowds watching them. More interest. Even when the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers are playing in SA, you often see large empty stadiums. Any New Zealand derby fixture is worth the watch because the outcomes are often up in the air. Even the Blues gave the Canes a run on their last match.

The reds have been crap, I agree, but they have been somewhat decent in recent years and well, who doesn't like to see Quade Cooper f4ck up. HE alone is worth the price of admission. Same goes for the Warratahs last season, and the Brumbies have traditionally been a decent Super Rugby side.

As it is right now, I am lucky to get the games on demand delay, so I am happy to pick the fixtures and teams I think will give me the best value for time I spend watching. This past weekend, I reluctantly watched the Canes and Blues, because the Blues have been crap, but it was a decent match (great first half) in the end. The Chiefs and Crusaders was a no brainer. I also considered the Brumbies and Reds, as an OZ derby game, but the latter have been so **** poor, I opted out. The result seems to have justified that, but you never can tell.

A comment to those English people on here going on about traditions, and history, and how poor Super League is perceived. My reaction to all that is that unless you have watched Super Rugby for a few seasons, then you have no basis to comment. At the very best level, clearly a much more entertaining brand than anything coming out of club rugby in the north. By a country mile. That, from and Englishman who just enjoys a good game of rugby.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Fair enough. Thanks for the Quade Cooper line, that cracked me up.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

A comment to those English people on here going on about traditions, and history, and how poor Super League is perceived. My reaction to all that is that unless you have watched Super Rugby for a few seasons, then you have no basis to comment. At the very best level, clearly a much more entertaining brand than anything coming out of club rugby in the north. By a country mile. That, from and Englishman who just enjoys a good game of rugby.

Ermm..... Who has said that?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I couldn't do that, but I searched and got the best that I could find. This is a comparison of SA team attendance in 2007 (second year of Super 14 and this year so far). Keep in mind that the Sharks and Bulls were the top two teams and contested the final in 2007:
(team-2007 figure- 2016 figure)
Bulls-41,259-17,921
Cheetahs-22,464-7,780
Lions-18,727-19,808
Sharks-38,039-23,591
Stormers-29,182-26,992

Found the Aus Average in 2006 which was total 624,443/ average 24,017.

In 2006, South Africa posted an average Super Rugby crowd of 34,000, Australia 24,000 and New Zealand 22,000.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Stormers maintain an average of 30k+ no matter our form. We're nt called the 'Newlands Faithful' for nothing.

We're almost never at the bottom but we never seem to have all our ducks in a row either. We'll be there in the play-offs but it'll take a bit of luck and then some for us to get over the line. TBF we've had a horror of a season as far as our backline is concerend;

Our 1st choice backline would probably look:

9 Vermaak
10 Du Preez
11 Senatla
12 De Allende (in form)
13 De Jongh
14 Hendricks
15 Kolbe

but because of illness/injuries and 7's call ups it looks totally different:

9 Groom
10 Du Plessis
11 Zas
12 De Allende (out of form)
13 not even sure who it might be week to week
14 Van Wyk
15 Taute

Also no disrespect to Robbie Fleck but Eddie Jones is probably the premier coach in the world ATM.

 

[saulan]

Stormers maintain an average of 30k+ no matter our form. We're nt called the 'Newlands Faithful' for nothing.

This is pretty accurate, attendance at Newlands each year has only dropped below 30,000 twice in the past ten years, not including this year (2007 and 2014). The worst was when it dropped to just over 25,000 in 2014, but the modal average over the past ten years has been over 40,000, which is pretty impressive.

 

[die_mole]

LOL, I get your points, @themole25 but I wouldn't go as far as calling SA's SR sides all-star teams. These sides are carbon copies of the major province that make up the 'catchment area'. In the recent past you might have two or three Northern Cape players in a Cheetahs side and a Mpumalanga player loaned here or there but that is the exception.

I also wouldn't call them all star teams ITO competitiveness. Only 4 of the 6 SA teams have any sort of money and then that pales in comparison to overseas clubs. The only way some of our top players are retained is allowing them stints in Japan's Top League in the SR off-season but the downside is these players come back knackered and off form if not injured (Damian de Allende, Marcel Coetzee) and hardly feature for their team.

I'd almost go as far as saying you could make 6 SA teams of players based abroad and they'd be more competitive than our SR teams at least on paper.

What was my point... ? I guess I didn't really have a point as such as just thinking and typing here. The main issue is competitiveness IMO. I feel the SA sides could all become competitive if we can manage continuity. Even the Cheetahs managed to make the play-offs in 2013 the year they didn't turn over 7+ players and the Kings for all their issues have more potential as a region than the Cheetahs do. Continuity, good management and politics not interfering. Easier said than done but the regions are coming up with ways of addressing player retention, this is a post RWC year and we've shed a boat load of players on top of all our teams bar the Lions having new coaches as well. Give us 2 years to gel. ITO management the Kings look set to drop their corrupt CEO and ITO political interference this is an election year. My hope is that after the elections we get less noise out of the politicians and less pressure on our sports bodies. Maybe I'm being a tad naive but that is my hope.

doesn't this just show that European competitions are the ones winning the battle to gather the best players

 

[nickdnz]

doesn't this just show that European competitions are the ones winning the battle to gather the best players

Well against South Africa - of course it does. Since SA changed their selection policy to allow foreign based players to play for the Boks, the political aspect of selection, and the weak SA currency; South Africa are really struggling to keep players in SA. It's not quite so prevalent in Aus or NZ however.

 

[Pampas]

Even the Blues gave the Canes a run on their last match.

Considering games versus the big boys, Jaguares had very good games against Chiefs and Sharks (x 2), as a matter of fact, we should have won those games. We also had good games against Stormers (lost by 4) Blues, and compete good enough against Hurricanes.
So Following your logic, you would have enjoyed those games.