What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fine Article on the Rugby World Cup 2003

Lantana

Juniors
Messages
353
It's no fun when the truth gets kicked into touch
Barry Dick
14oct03

Not everyone is enamoured with rugby union's World Cup, writes Barry Dick.

Excuse me for just one moment if I don't get swept away by the hyperbole of the Rugby World Cup.

There is no doubt the Cup is a notable sporting event and one to be savoured by rugby aficionados and genuine sports lovers of all sorts but, please, spare me the over-the-top claims which damage the credibility of the code, and those who are "selling" it.

The world did not stop last Friday night for the Cup opening ceremony, nor did it stop when Australia played Argentina a little later and it certainly didn't stop when France played Fiji in Brisbane on Saturday night.

One Sydney newspaper claimed last week that four billion people worldwide would watch RWC. That's two-thirds of the world's population watching a sport which is the No. 1 football code in . . . let's add them up . . . one country.

Somehow I doubt few, if any, television sets in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the United States – and I mention those five because they account for more than half the world's population – would be tuned in at any stage.

And let's have just a little realism with our six weeks of rugby. After England beat Georgia 84-6 last Sunday night in Perth, England coach Clive Woodward had this to say: "Georgia were fantastic. They were outstanding today, especially their attitude. Magnificent. It just shows that in the World Cup a team like Georgia can play.

"They acquitted themselves very, very well and played in an exemplary spirit."

Nice sentiments, Clive, but not exactly a true appraisal of a game in which Georgia's finest rugby players made 154 tackles to England's 40 and still missed more than they made.

A much more realistic assessment came from Georgia manager Zaza Kassachvili, who said the mere fact of Georgia's participation in the Cup outweighed its results in terms of importance.

There is no disputing that, just as there was no disputing the fact that the participation of countries such as Lebanon, Russia, Scotland and the Cook Islands in rugby league's World Cup in 2000 was infinitely more important than their results, but rugby league's toe-in-the-water experiment with a World Cup three years ago was battered from pillar to post by some of the same critics who are now lauding RWC 2003 as a wonderful success.

Poor old rugby league – the code which supplied three of the drawcard players in the Australian rugby union squad (Wendell Sailor, Mat Rogers and Lote Tuqiri) and taught New Zealand's first tryscorer in this tournament (Brad Thorn) most of what he knows about being a professional footballer – when it tried something on an international scale it was laughed at mercilessly.

Don't believe me? Here are some quotes from the critics in October and November 2000: "Forget about the (rugby league) World Cup, it's a lemon", "Where is the incentive in playing against a side which has no history in the game, few homegrown players and no talent?" (Did someone mention Georgia?) and "How about that rugby league World Cup eh? What do you mean 'Who cares?'."

Three years ago, when league's World Cup produced some terribly lopsided scorelines – Australia 110-4 over Russia, 66-10 over Samoa and 66-8 over Fiji; New Zealand 84-10 over the Cook Islands and England 76-4 over Russia to mention a few – it was described as a farce, or mickey mouse.

The first weekend of RWC 2003 gave us scorelines of 84-6, 70-7, 72-6 and 61-18 but these were greeted by "Who cares about results, it's the event that matters".

No argument there, but why was Fiji's 18-61 loss to France "an event" while their 8-66 loss to Australia three years ago "a farce"?

I'm not for one minute suggesting Rugby World Cup isn't a terrific event. It will generate plenty of income for Australia and will give people an enormous amount of pleasure at a time when we all need it.

So, enjoy the carnival, rugby fans. Enjoy painting your faces in national colours. Enjoy your national anthems being sung with more enthusiasm than at any other sporting event. Enjoy your Mexican Waves (even if Mexico doesn't have a team here). And most of all, have fun . . . but not with the truth.
 
Messages
4,331
LOL. Paul Kent wrote something similar in the Telegraph yesterday. A load of other journos will write stuff about how great the World Cup is. And not one of them will do anything except sell a few papers.
 

dimitri

First Grade
Messages
7,980
The first weekend of RWC 2003 gave us scorelines of 84-6, 70-7, 72-6 and 61-18 but these were greeted by "Who cares about results, it's the event that matters".

No argument there, but why was Fiji's 18-61 loss to France "an event" while their 8-66 loss to Australia three years ago "a farce"?


:roll: :roll:

yawnion
 

JK

Guest
Messages
5,549
Suprisingly even Melbourne (hence AFL) dominated Crikey.com is getting in on the gig.

Union living up to its claim of getting into new markets? I cannot tell if this article is pro-anything, I think it is just anti-union claims...

10. GREAT RUGBY BEAT-UPS
A rugby sceptic writes:
While you are debunking rubbery sports numbers, can you please turn your attentions to the Rugby World Cup viewer numbers. The Daily Telegraph, perhaps compromised by its contract with the ARU and Rupert's 10-year $600 million television rights deal with the sport, is claiming 4 billion people! Yeah, right. As if 60 per cent of the world's population would tune in. And even if it is a cumulative audience this is almost as much bunkum as the claim the cup will generate $1 billion in economic benefit for Australia.

American's will ignore it en masse (if only because those soft -on-dictators French are playing), and they have a team playing. You can imagine the excitement it must be generating in countries such as China, India, Nigeria and Indonesia, with no real links to rugby whatsoever.

The Cricket World Cup, which attracted huge audiences in populous countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, did not make absurd claims such as these. Perhaps 100 million people world-wide will actively watch the RWC (news broadcast highlights, or pausing for a few minutes whilst channel surfing don't count). This is in itself an impressive figure, so why the need for a 400fold exaggeration by our press (which should be reporting, not promoting the event).

Another dubious claim is that the RWC is the biggest sporting event in the world in 2003. The World Athletics Championships attracted far more competitors from far more countries, and its average attendances (70,000 a day, plus several million watching the road events) will exceed those of the RWC. The Tour de France attracts even more spectators and viewers. Viewer numbers for the Formula One Grand Prix, English Premier League and any number of American sports tournaments (Super Bowl, World Series, NBA) would exceed those of the RWC.

Let's be honest - Rugby is a fringe sport on the World stage and only attracts significant interest in a handful of Commonwealth countries.
And when you consider that the International Rugby Board will cream about $50 million back to London out of the tournament, there might even be a net negative economic impact.

Mark my words, many people will tire of these one-sided group games quickly as there are only 6 teams that can win it.
 

bayrep

Juniors
Messages
2,112
Its amazing that people can only see the negative in something, it happens I know in league. Why go out of your way to write the negaitive when there are just as many positives to union and the world cup. Trust me if league could get this amount of teams with 5 - 6 teams that could win the cup league would be over the moon. I would be over the moon. I know I know that some of the claims are definitly stretched and we are all intellegent enough to know when the marketing machine has kicked into over driver and stretched the dribble to breaking point. So why regurgitate the crap, why not except the cup with the negatives and just enjoy the event for what it is.

I must admitt in the 99 world cup I got caught up in the hype to such an extent that I flet low for weeks after, so for this one and for orther tests, finals or other major rugby events I tend to avoid the media hype with a 10 foot pole. I must say that I am enoying this world cup, yes there are one sided scores but this doesnt mean that for 20mins of each half the minow has given blood to score even one try which has stretch the major team. It has been good to see teams I wouldnt normally see face countries I see all the time, which is what the world cup is all about. If you are stuck in this league vs union debate dont bother watching at all becuase you just will not enjoy the event.
 

Stevo_G

Juniors
Messages
696
but why claim 4 billion people watch the world cup when they would be lucky to get even 1 billion, and that would be lucky
 

Lantana

Juniors
Messages
353
I think the thing that really gets up RL people's noses is that when the one-sided scorelines started to appear at the RLWC2000 it IMMEDIATELY become a farce!
Now the EXACT same thing (even worse on averages) is happening in the RWC2003 everybody is supposed to shut up and enjoy the atmosphere?
This great feeling you get when an underdog score a try after 20mins of trying...did you feel that when the Russians scored their first RLWC try against the Aussies when they got hammered? No? Why? Because that 104-4 beat up was such a farce compared to the 84-8 drubbing of Georgia?
It is frustrating to see the Union people rearing up over comments that the Rugby League community had rubbed in their face three years ago.
The big problem is that the Union people might be seeing their "International Halo" tarnished and slipping because of this tournament.
Be real, only five teams (at most) are in with a chance, in the RL it is three (at most). Not that big a difference when you consider the amount of international clout the Union has.
We'll see the importance placed on International Rugby when John O'Neill's master plan for a national competition comes to fruition.
Big John is certain Union will Be the Number 1 sport in Sydney and Brisbane..on the back of 3 internationals 5 Super 12's and 2 rounds of Mickey Mouse club crap that hasn't even been tested yet.
I say 'Good Luck, John" with your National club competition. I hope it goes well for you. But understand this, for every positive their is a negative, so don't go biting the hand that feeds you (international rugby) and don't go wishing to hard for something as you may just get it.
 

dimitri

First Grade
Messages
7,980
I think the thing that really gets up RL people's noses is that when the one-sided scorelines started to appear at the RLWC2000 it IMMEDIATELY become a farce!
Now the EXACT same thing (even worse on averages) is happening in the RWC2003 everybody is supposed to shut up and enjoy the atmosphere?

i agree


the yawnion scores are so much worse
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Peter FitzSimons was on The Back Page on Monday defending all the blowouts saying how great the RWC was. Hookes then mentioned to him he bagged the shit out of the RLWC when the same thing happened in it and he came up with some idiotic comment then proceeded to bag the RLWC :roll:

Talk about making yourself look like a complete fool.
 

dimitri

First Grade
Messages
7,980
unfortunately the only union commentator i can listen to is Gorden Bray

the rest make themselves look like fools
 

Parra_Eels

Bench
Messages
2,531
i reckon if usa beat fiji that would've gotten some coverage in the states. apparently yanks are fascinated with league and union(kelly slater for example) coz there no padding, no stopping every half a second.
 

Shimmy

Juniors
Messages
13
Some interesting comments from the aticle and from the responses.

The main differences I see between the RU and RL world cups is that firstly, more than one team can win it in RU (probably 5) as aposed to just one in RL. Also there are another 5-6 teams who can make a decent game of it and maybe cause the odd upset. Another thing is that most of the players in the RL word cup (apart from NZ and UK) were Aussie expats or Aussies with non-Ozzie parenting (Lebanon, Russia, etc). I think this is what caused most of the negative comments from RU circles. In RU, the vast majority of the players competing (if not all) were born and bred and developed the skills in the country they are representing. I think this makes it a more legitimate competition, even though there are the blown out scorelines.

Barry Dick does appears to be a bit ignorant on the popularity of RU on the world stage however. Rugby in Geogia for instance has a huge following due to its similarity to a game they have played since before the birth of Christ. The world cup play off between Georgia and Russia attracted 55,00 people (the maximum capacity of the stadium) and the players are household names; I bet that surprises a few of you. I agree with his comments about world wide viewing stats; utterly rediculous.

While personally I like both sports, I've found it hard to follow RL since I left Oz and moved first to the UK. It simply doesn't get any media attention there what so ever and the games are only on cable. I didn't even know the last world cup was on until the semifinals were on and it was in the country I was living in!!! Perhaps in the Midlands it is popular, but anywhere else and most people won't know what you're talking about if you mention RL.

I remember following RL religiously in Oz (Broncos) and getting swept up in all the hype about it growing globally. Believe me its all marketing. I've travelled the world and the only places where RL has any real following is in the middle region of England and the east coast of Austraila. Outside of Oz, NZ, UK, and PNG, noone knows that here are two rugby codes.

As for RU in the States (and I've lived there), it has a cult following and is played a lot at University level. I was surprised how well it's known actually as most of the people I met seem to have heard of it (although not necessarily knew the rules). It's generally seen as a preppy upper class sport much the same as the UK. It's definately more popular on the West Coast with San Francisco being the home of RU in the US. Acutally Robin Williams (who lives in San Fran) is a huge all blacks and Lomu supporter and flew to see them play at the last world cup.

RL is completely unknown and not played at all in the US; if you mention RL to someone they will think you're referring to the national RU competition which is called the RL. And yes Americans are amazed by the fact that there are is no padding used in rugby. Padding and helmets are very expensive and a lot of high schools cannot aford this gear and so are not fielding Gridiron teams; there turning to RU instead. Being an extremely litigious society however means that court cases may occur which limit RU's success. If you want RL to succeed in the US, it can only be through RU.
 

bazza

Immortal
Messages
31,263
Shimmy said:
The main differences I see between the RU and RL world cups is that firstly, more than one team can win it in RU (probably 5) as aposed to just one in RL.

What? Only 1 team can win the RU world cup (unless they have changed the rules and there is some way that there could be a 5 way tie)

Anyway - nice rant.

BTW - rugby league is played in the US. It may not be very popular but it is played. http://www.amnrl.com

Also the area in the UK where league is most popular would be the north as opposed to the midlands where league is not very popular and is the area of some of Englands most popular RU teams

You are right about one thing - it's all about marketing - one thing that RU administration is quite good at and RL struggles with at most times
 

Shimmy

Juniors
Messages
13
What? Only 1 team can win the RU world cup (unless they have changed the rules and there is some way that there could be a 5 way tie)

Of course I meant teams with a realistic chance of winning.

BTW - rugby league is played in the US. It may not be very popular but it is played. http://www.amnrl.com

I'm shocked. The amount of times I've explained it to people that there are two codes; "So why are there two if there so similar" is the usual reply. I'll wager they're just Ozzie expats though...

Also the area in the UK where league is most popular would be the north as opposed to the midlands where league is not very popular and is the area of some of Englands most popular RU teams

Ah yes the North; Leeds etc.

You are right about one thing - it's all about marketing - one thing that RU administration is quite good at and RL struggles with at most times

Are you referring to Australia? Haven't lived there for 6 years so I can't comment. As for the UK though (not referring to the north here), there's no RL marketing so I'm not surprised there's no impact. The world cup was a joke.
 

bazza

Immortal
Messages
31,263
Shimmy said:
What? Only 1 team can win the RU world cup (unless they have changed the rules and there is some way that there could be a 5 way tie)

Of course I meant teams with a realistic chance of winning.

:lol: Just a little joke but I understand what you are saying. In my opinion it will be out of NZ, France and England with Australia an outside chance.
What RU are good at is talking up chances of countries like Wales, Scotland and Ireland who really have no chance and appart from Ireland are actually pretty crap compared to the big 5. Wales have been good in the past but that was something like 30 years ago

BTW - rugby league is played in the US. It may not be very popular but it is played. http://www.amnrl.com

I'm shocked. The amount of times I've explained it to people that there are two codes; "So why are there two if there so similar" is the usual reply. I'll wager they're just Ozzie expats though...
Yeah - headed by former St George player David Nui. Would be at least 50% local players - but it is only 8 clubs. They have been active in trying to get international games and have played against Ireland for about 5 years in a row.
From my time in America I would say that a fair amount of people would know about rugby but few would have played it or seen a full game - let alone know that there are 2 codes.

You are right about one thing - it's all about marketing - one thing that RU administration is quite good at and RL struggles with at most times

Are you referring to Australia? Haven't lived there for 6 years so I can't comment. As for the UK though (not referring to the north here), there's no RL marketing so I'm not surprised there's no impact. The world cup was a joke.

Marketing for RU in Australia (in particular for this world cup) has been quite extensive and credit to the ARU.
From what I hear in the UK, union has a lot more coverage in the mdeia than lague even though the top competitions in both competitions seem to draw similar crowds. Also I don't think league is in a positino to spend too much on marketing or if they are very good at it. From your experience - they aren't all that impressive
 

Latest posts

Top