The fact that they are using the semi against Fiji as an indicator is ridiculous as well. I was at that game and it was a 56-0 flogging and one of the most boring sporting events I have ever been to.
Regarding that semi-final, it's a miracle that 16k turned out to Allianz for that match, given there was very little promotion for it (most of the attention was on the England/NZ semi the night before), it was late on a Sunday night and didn't finish until close to 10pm, let alone Fiji was always going to be on a hiding to nothing given it was 22-0 after 16 minutes and Australia was barely even trying. It was simply a no-contest, boys playing against men, and given the circumstances, kudos to those who forked out money for that game (as it wasn't cheap).
I also take issue with using crowds from 2008 as an excuse for small stadiums and ignoring Sydney.
2008 was a rebirth of sorts for International RL - Am I insane to think we've come a fair way since then? Maybe I'm blindly optimistic, but i'd expect Australia v England opener with good promotion to pull 50+
As it was explained to me, the NSW Government was not prepared to make an investment on this World Cup based on the failure of the last one in 2008, in which — on average — 52 percent of stadia was not filled.
so the NSW Govt's excuse is to blame what happened at an event NINE years previously!!!!
This.
The reputation of International RL in Australia has come a long way since then. To try and justify decisions based on what happened nearly a decade ago is completely, utterly braindead to the max. People have a short-term memory of where test football was at during that time. To try and say Sydney deserves to be punished for poor international attendances, then allocate them a match against a minnow (Lebanon), inflate the ticket prices for next year's tournament and just suddenly expect it to sell-out?
It was only a year earlier towards the end of 2007 that Australia smashed NZ 58-0 in NZ. Off the back of that until the 2008 RLWC, the media kept bagging out the tournament, saying it was a complete waste of time, just give Australia the trophy etc. etc. Colin Love as ARL CEO made an absolute mockery of the tournament, following in the footsteps of David Gallop by giving Ch9/2GB the exclusive broadcasting rights on a silver platter. All he cared about was the big fat 6-digit paycheck he was going to get for doing absolute jack all as the tournament organiser. Undoubtedly the easiest paycheck he ever received. Ch9 with their delayed telecasts saturated with ads (when everywhere else in the world could watch it live), Ray Hadley on 2GB saying that the World Cup was a farce in the lead-up to the Australia vs NZ match. How was the tournament ever going to achieve its full potential when the broadcasters were trying to sabotage it? Only in RL do we allow this to happen again and again, and no-one says anything about it...do the same thing in AFL or other sports here, and you would be sacked.
On the field, there was a massive gap in the squad talent between Australia and the next of the big 3, NZ and England. Australia had big wins against NZ and England in the pool stages of the 2008 RLWC (30-6, 52-4) and were on schedule for another big win in the final until Lockyer lost the ball over the line at 10-0 (shades of Mundine in the '99 NRL GF), NZ afterwards bounced back with 2 quick converted tries to lead 12-10, momentum of the game changed and NZ went on to win. It was probably the best thing for the tournament at that time, as I can only imagine what would've happened in the media if Australia racked up another large score, like they had throughout the tournament.
Since then, NZ also won the 2010/2014 four-nations, the 4th team Samoa have also bridged the gap (nearly defeating NZ, scoring same number of tries as England but goalkicking was the difference), Australia vs Samoa in Wollongong selling out, which the same fixture wouldn't have got anymore than 10k back in 2008. As I mentioned in another international RL thread, Union has 5 teams (Australia/NZ/England/South Africa/France) that have made a Rugby World Cup final, and are the genuine potentials to win the cup (i.e. Tier 1 nations. Ireland/Argentina/Wales/Scotland are Tier 2, teams that will give Tier 1 teams a run for their money occasionally and will pull off upsets, but are still behind the Tier 1 teams in terms of overall development). Now, I understand that the RLIF/RFL don't have the millions of dollars to throw around in development that the RFU has. However, the goal for the RLIF/RFL should bea s follows: If rugby league can bridge the gap between the Tier 1 (Australia/NZ/England) and Tier 2 nations, and even get just one more team (whether it be Samoa/Tonga/PNG/France/Wales) to a similar level of competitiveness as the big 3 (Australia/NZ/England) and potentially make the final, there are some very exciting times ahead for international RL. Unfortunately, it's still at least another World Cup off before we potentially see a team outside of Australia/NZ/England make the final, and next year's final will still be either Australia vs NZ/Australia vs England/England vs NZ.
