Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby

[Nubiwan]

This weekends Super Rugby Fixtures

• Blues vs. Brumbies at 3:35 a.m. ET
• Reds vs. Chiefs at 5:40 a.m. ET
• Lions vs. Kings at 1 p.m. ET

• Crusaders vs. Rebels at 3:35 a.m. ET
• Waratahs vs. Hurricanes at 5:40 a.m. ET
• Force vs. Stormers at 7:45 a.m. ET
• Bulls vs. Japan at 11:05 a.m. ET
• Sharks vs. Cheetahs at 1:10 p.m. ET
• Jaguares vs. Highlanders at TBC

Tahs V Hurricanes is the game of the round. Blues V Brumbies might be interesting as contest, even if Blues are out. The rest promise to be one sided affairs. If the Jags are at home, and as good as previous poster has suggested, then might be worth a nibble. Certainly if the Highlanders are travelling. I am not sure who the home team is, as our local provider has a nagging habit of reversing home and away teams. Viz Japan LOL. North America for you.....

- - - Updated - - -

Ermm..... Who has said that?

It was inferred in a previous post by the mole. Perhaps I got it wrong. Apologies!

 

[TRF_heineken]

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

True, but in the past most of the people that attended some matches were the Cape Crusaders who support New Zealand teams, or are there to boo the Stormers.

 

[saulan]

True, but in the past most of the people that attended some matches were the Cape Crusaders who support New Zealand teams, or are there to boo the Stormers.

They are by far the minority, it wouldn't be possible to get such high averages if it were because we don't play New Zealand teams every week. Also the New Zealand, at least from my experience, weren't usually the most packed ones anyway. It's the games against the other local teams that got sold out.

Edit: I looked it up, at least for 2014. Our biggest matches attendance wise at home were the Sharks, Crusaders and the Bulls, each over 45000 with the Sharks game at over 49,000. The worst attended match was the Kings game, obviously, at 16,000 and then followed by the Cheetahs at about 26 or 28,000 I think. The rest of the games were all in the 30 to 40,000 attendance band. Yes the Cape Crusaders come out for the Crusaders game, but they don't really come out in numbers for the other games, and even when they do come out for the Crusaders game, they are still the minority, they are just really loud. It seems that the Stormers crowd generally turns up, with variations depending on the quality of the opposition (the better contest gets a bigger crowd) and then the big rivalries between the Bulls and the Sharks gets the most attendance.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

True, but in the past most of the people that attended some matches were the Cape Crusaders who support New Zealand teams, or are there to boo the Stormers.

Certainly not the most. They are a very loud and obnoxious minority but they are a minority and its only really specifically the Crusaders. You'll see a fair few pitch for Hurricanes and Chiefs matches as well but there you hardly notice them. I won't go to Newlands when we play the Crusaders or at least I won't take my boy along.

 

[TRF_heineken]

They are by far the minority, it wouldn't be possible to get such high averages if it were because we don't play New Zealand teams every week. Also the New Zealand, at least from my experience, weren't usually the most packed ones anyway. It's the games against the other local teams that got sold out.

Edit: I looked it up, at least for 2014. Our biggest matches attendance wise at home were the Sharks, Crusaders and the Bulls, each over 45000 with the Sharks game at over 49,000. The worst attended match was the Kings game, obviously, at 16,000 and then followed by the Cheetahs at about 26 or 28,000 I think. The rest of the games were all in the 30 to 40,000 attendance band. Yes the Cape Crusaders come out for the Crusaders game, but they don't really come out in numbers for the other games, and even when they do come out for the Crusaders game, they are still the minority, they are just really loud. It seems that the Stormers crowd generally turns up, with variations depending on the quality of the opposition (the better contest gets a bigger crowd) and then the big rivalries between the Bulls and the Sharks gets the most attendance.

Fair enough, but it is still a factor to consider.

But let's take Ellis Park as an example. We all know why Ellis Park has such low numbers, as the Lions were the whipping boys for years, and only now are starting to be a winning team as they were during the Super 10 series. The other factor is the area where Ellis Park is located, it's one of the dodgiest areas in South Africa, people literally fear for their lives when they go to Hillbrow (or little Lagos as I'd like to call it).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

True, but in the past most of the people that attended some matches were the Cape Crusaders who support New Zealand teams, or are there to boo the Stormers.

This is sig material!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

This is sig material!

Its a factor though. Just as the fact that derbies tend to get more spectators since 'away' team fans might be likelier to make the more managable trek or have relocated to the home team's town but still support the away side rather than the intercontinental affair that is out-of-conference fixtures the NZ sides (especially the Crusaders) have a very large fan base indeed in the Cape among the majority Cape Colored community.

Edit; my grammar went out the window this paragraph- I hope it makes sense!?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Its a factor though. Just as the fact that derbies tend to get more spectators since 'away' team fans might be likelier to make the more managable trek or have relocated to the home team's town but still support the away side rather than the intercontinental affair that is out-of-conference fixtures the NZ sides (especially the Crusaders) have a very large fan base indeed in the Cape among the majority Cape Colored community.

Edit; my grammar went out the window this paragraph- I hope it makes sense!?

You are correct.

I think if I had to get my tickets from all the matches I watched at Loftus over the years for regular season Super Rugby matches, it would be like 80% Bulls vs. Stormers matches.

 

[SomeOke]

In the end South Africa cannot afford to keep it's players at club level unless something changes drastically.
Within 10 years we will be the whipping boys of Super Rugby and just feeder leagues for the North (which we almost are already).

We should join the North now while we still have some power, I know the public, SARU, the players, the Australasians and even the British don't want us too, but it's the only realistic option. We just need to bite the bullet and cut our losses. Argentina has a feeder league in football and they still do well on the international stage, it won't be so bad hopefully, not to mention it gives our youngsters more of a chance (kind of like an inverse France, where their youngsters can't find spots in their top 14 sides).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

In the end South Africa cannot afford to keep it's players at club level unless something changes drastically.
Within 10 years we will be the whipping boys of Super Rugby and just feeder leagues for the North (which we almost are already).

We should join the North now while we still have some power, I know the public, SARU, the players, the Australasians and even the British don't want us too, but it's the only realistic option. We just need to bite the bullet and cut our losses. Argentina has a feeder league in football and they still do well on the international stage, it won't be so bad hopefully, not to mention it gives our youngsters more of a chance (kind of like an inverse France, where their youngsters can't find spots in their top 14 sides).

I think that should be the last option we take. If anything 'opening up' more to Northern clubs might just mean we bleed out even more to them unless we can claim a similar piece of the pie which we won't because the English and French clubs don't make their money off of the ECC as much as off EP and T14 domestic leagues. As much as I would love for the Currie Cup to become a main event again and qualify our teams to a ECC type tournament I feel we should rather look to establish that with our current partners. Would Euro teams really be interested in flying to SA when they already see Italy as being as being on the other side of the planet? We are used to distance, them not so much.

Also, from a Bok perspective, why not rather exploit your young to the top teams and superior rugby?

And on French youngsters I suspect if you do the math you'll find France is getting more game tie out of their youngsters in their comps than we are; 14 teams plays 6, 32 regular season games against 15 (not counting play-offs here). Thats 448 matches for French teams vs our 90. they can afford to field 5 times less youngsters than us to get on par and with the length of the T14 those youngsters do get exposure. I follow Racing 92 quite closely and even for a massive club like them relative youngsters feature as 1st choice starters (when fit) like Teddy Thomas (22) and Camille Chat (20). Sure that's only 2 players 22 years of age and under but with the average of 3 per club for France that amounts to 15 players per team of 22 years and under SA sides need to field in SR which we don't.

 

[SomeOke]

Perhaps you're right about France getting just as much youngster exposure as us I just made an assumption but,

I think that should be the last option we take. If anything 'opening up' more to Northern clubs might just mean we bleed out even more to them unless we can claim a similar piece of the pie which we won't because the English and French clubs don't make their money off of the ECC as much as off EP and T14 domestic leagues. As much as I would love for the Currie Cup to become a main event again and qualify our teams to a ECC type tournament I feel we should rather look to establish that with our current partners. Would Euro teams really be interested in flying to SA when they already see Italy as being as being on the other side of the planet? We are used to distance, them not so much.

I don't understand why we'd bleed out more, surely if all of our players are playing in Europe in the same league and getting European salaries there would be no disincentive to play for the Bokke.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I am a yank, not a pommy... Although I am a WASP... So idk maybe I'm considered English
Edit: is yank supposed to be a offensive, is pommy offensive? The American school system doesn't teach you how to not offend minorities in the states let alone other nationalities.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How long do you think that's going to last though. Restrictions on labour almost never work long run. If European club rugby continues to grow financially eventually the benefits of playing in England or France will outweigh the benefits of playing in oz or nz. Note that the benefits are not just financial but pride of playing for country and such. Oz is already loosening up their selection policy. Kiwis say they aren't going to budge but if key players leave you never know

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Perhaps you're right about France getting just as much youngster exposure as us I just made an assumption but,

I don't understand why we'd bleed out more, surely if all of our players are playing in Europe in the same league and getting European salaries there would be no disincentive to play for the Bokke.

If world rugby would get rid of the three year residency rule South Africa would be in a position to allow young players to go to Europe to play, but as it stands now there is a chance they will be wearing blue or white three years after they leave

 

[SomeOke]

If world rugby would get rid of the three year residency rule South Africa would be in a position to allow young players to go to Europe to play, but as it stands now there is a chance they will be wearing blue or white three years after they leave

Preach I'm all for immigration and adopting a new nation, but three years is practically a paid holiday.

 

[Larksea]

another factor I can think of in NZ anyway is the Sky issue.

people have generally been unsubscribing from sky in frustration with the service, When the WC finished a huge amount of customers left sky. and become more and more frustrated as prices rise and more and more adds are shown. There aren't any real alternatives for watching the rugby but I guess people have been giving that up and switching to other services for movies & TV shows.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Perhaps you're right about France getting just as much youngster exposure as us I just made an assumption but,

I don't understand why we'd bleed out more, surely if all of our players are playing in Europe in the same league and getting European salaries there would be no disincentive to play for the Bokke.

You also have to consider the identity of our national team. We have always had a strong contingent of home based players playing for the Bokke, if we go this route, we might end up with a Springbok team that comprises of just foreign based players. I know a lot of fans that won't go to the stadium if that happens, they want to relate to the players.

But coming back to Super Rugby, I'm one of those against the idea of leaving Super Rugby and going North. First of all, I like that we play against NZ and AUS teams. together we have always been the top teams since the proffessional era and here and there a NH team wiggles it's way through. But to remain competitive, we have to compete against the best, and in my view, the NZ teams are the best type of opposition for our teams. Mainly due to the X factors they bring to the party, and causes our teams to do the same.

If we go to the North, we might end up where all our teams go back to the dreaded stampkar rugby plan, as it will work very well against those teams up north, and let's all agree, we've seen enough of that (yes, even me, a Bulls supporter). It would become boring and monotonous and we might even end up losing players who doesn't fit in that style of play.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

You also have to consider the identity of our national team. We have always had a strong contingent of home based players playing for the Bokke, if we go this route, we might end up with a Springbok team that comprises of just foreign based players. I know a lot of fans that won't go to the stadium if that happens, they want to relate to the players.

But coming back to Super Rugby, I'm one of those against the idea of leaving Super Rugby and going North. First of all, I like that we play against NZ and AUS teams. together we have always been the top teams since the proffessional era and here and there a NH team wiggles it's way through. But to remain competitive, we have to compete against the best, and in my view, the NZ teams are the best type of opposition for our teams. Mainly due to the X factors they bring to the party, and causes our teams to do the same.

If we go to the North, we might end up where all our teams go back to the dreaded stampkar rugby plan, as it will work very well against those teams up north, and let's all agree, we've seen enough of that (yes, even me, a Bulls supporter). It would become boring and monotonous and we might even end up losing players who doesn't fit in that style of play.

i honestly don't get why people don't like the idea of having their national team be mainly based overseas... they still share your same nationality and at the end of the day what if a player leaves to improve their career (and they are still allowed to play for the national team) aren't they trying to improve the national team
just cause habana and the du plessis play in france doesn't mean they aren't south african anymore

 

[unrated]

Yea but guys who move to Europe does not have the opportunity to play week in and week out with their potential fellow springbok players. When you get to the national team the players then has to first learn to play together. With Super rugby the players get to play with and against each other and build combos and partnerships. I agree with Heineken on leaving Super rugby. Our clubs will make more money if we go north as their tv revenue is pretty high and we will also contribute many viewers. Unfortunately we are better served in the current setup. Yes we make less money but for the SANZAAR nations to keep playing eachother and improving one another we can remain the strongest rugby powers in the world. If we dont play these Super rugby teams on a weekly basis i fear the quality of our teams might decrease.

 

[TRF_heineken]

i honestly don't get why people don't like the idea of having their national team be mainly based overseas... they still share your same nationality and at the end of the day what if a player leaves to improve their career (and they are still allowed to play for the national team) aren't they trying to improve the national team
just cause habana and the du plessis play in france doesn't mean they aren't south african anymore

A foreigner won't get it, so don't bother to understand what I'm saying.

We are a very traditional nation, and doing things a certain way. Same applies to our sport, and as passionate fans we live and breathe the Springboks. Something that the USA might not get, as you don't really traditionally participate in international sports against other national teams, apart from perhaps Ice Hockey. But Rugby, is like a religion in SA. It's not just about the match itself, but in the atmosphere at the stadium or even at home. Having a braai with friends before or after the match, eating biltong and drinking beer. That whole week before the match there is excitement and some households only speak about the match as a topic around the dinner table. We are very much aligned towards the union/franchise we support in Super Rugby/Currie Cup, and we alwas wish that players in that certain team gets the call up to the national side, so that we can have more bragging right than another friend or family member that supports another team.

If All the players are based overseas, it will have a massive impact on the health of the game locally. Mainly because supporters won't have that connection to their idols, we won't know who is on form or not, and then it becomes a financial issue as it will result in fewer people attending Springbok matches, which will flow down to fewer people attending Super Rugby or Currie Cup matches, as they won't find any use of going to a match where none of the players are Springboks or even in the running for a Springbok place.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

It's probably worth pointing out that with the beatings the Aussie teams are taking (including their top ranked team, the Brumbies today against the worst NZ team, and probably the Waratahs tomorrow against the Chiefs (lets spare the Reds blushes by not even mentioning them)); there is every likelihood that even a league with eight playoff spots this year may not have included a single Australian team. The Blues points tally is only lower than a couple of Aussie teams because they've had to play six games against other NZ teams. The playoffs would probably have four NZ teams with homefield advantage (notwithstanding the apparent genuine quality of the Lions this season) plus the Blues away from home. The semis could easily have been an all NZ affair.

I'd argue a format that potentially excludes an entire country from the playoffs isn't healthy for the competition either.

The more I hear about the expansion teams (e.g. the Sunwolves had 10 days of preperation before the season and it followed straight on from their national league contest) it does sound like the Super Rugby organisers have done a lot to make the new format even more unpopular with existing fans than it would already have been.