RU in Australia on “life support”

[Te Kaha]

Mate, you haven't presented a single fact or stat here, whilst I have offered plenty.

When you start offering the slightest bit of evidence to back up your claims, you'll have some credibility, but until you do I will continue to feel rightly entitled to dismiss your mind-numbingly shallow "arguments".

I have presented just as much evidence as you have. None of your claims have merit.

 

[Parra]

f**king always he-said she-said. Here now too.

 

[Te Kaha]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...od-but-south-africa-australia-on-life-support

Timely...

The English and French comps.. despite have bucket loads of money aren't really increasing crowds or Viewers.

Maybe its not money that's the problem, as has been suggested. but can best be summed up from the article "Part of the excitement of watching sport is not knowing what will happen, but over the past few years it has been increasingly obvious that this competition is a battle between the Lions and the New Zealand franchises. "

Which means no one watches when your teams aren't winning.

 

[Perth Red]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...od-but-south-africa-australia-on-life-support

Timely...

The English and French comps.. despite have bucket loads of money aren't really increasing crowds or Viewers.

Maybe its not money that's the problem, as has been suggested. but can best be summed up from the article "Part of the excitement of watching sport is not knowing what will happen, but over the past few years it has been increasingly obvious that this competition is a battle between the Lions and the New Zealand franchises. "

Which means no one watches when your teams aren't winning.

I wonder how much money really plays that big a part in sport attendance. Look at NRL, this year revenue will be triple what it was a few years ago but crowds are worse than a few years ago. Look at Darts, not really any massive revenue increase yet have turned the spectacle of the event around to the point they are now packing out the venues. People are becoming time poor and are getting used to easily digestible leisure pursuits so committing to spending most of the day going to a game will be an increasingly big ask unless the experience is something special.

 

[Parra]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...od-but-south-africa-australia-on-life-support

Timely...

The English and French comps.. despite have bucket loads of money aren't really increasing crowds or Viewers.

Maybe its not money that's the problem, as has been suggested. but can best be summed up from the article "Part of the excitement of watching sport is not knowing what will happen, but over the past few years it has been increasingly obvious that this competition is a battle between the Lions and the New Zealand franchises. "

Which means no one watches when your teams aren't winning.

It means no-one watches when the result is a foregone conclusion.

Any sport needs games that are a spectacle - this needs good tactics, good players and officials. And it needs to be a contest. The recent Aus/Irish series is a great case in point. If wasn't the Wallabies wonning that was attractive, it was the quality of the footy and the fact that is was competitive. The results were not known.

Winning is a big part of this for sure. If winning is a foregone conclusion people lose interest.

 

[Te Kaha]

It means no-one watches when the result is a foregone conclusion.

Any sport needs games that are a spectacle - this needs good tactics, good players and officials. And it needs to be a contest. The recent Aus/Irish series is a great case in point. If wasn't the Wallabies wonning that was attractive, it was the quality of the footy and the fact that is was competitive. The results were not known.

Winning is a big part of this for sure. If winning is a foregone conclusion people lose interest.

For sure, but the Aussie teams haven't even looked like winning.

 

[Parra]

In other words, they are not competitive.

Yes, winning will fix a lot of things.

 

[Te Kaha]

In other words, they are not competitive.

Yes, winning will fix a lot of things.

Which needs to be fixed. Or no amount of money will save RA

 

[RoosTah]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...od-but-south-africa-australia-on-life-support

Timely...

The English and French comps.. despite have bucket loads of money aren't really increasing crowds or Viewers.

Maybe its not money that's the problem, as has been suggested. but can best be summed up from the article "Part of the excitement of watching sport is not knowing what will happen, but over the past few years it has been increasingly obvious that this competition is a battle between the Lions and the New Zealand franchises. "

Which means no one watches when your teams aren't winning.

I read that article, but I still think it's an ignorant as shit reading of the Aussie sporting landscape.

You and I aren't going to agree on this, but suffice it to say I consider Australian Rugby's problems to be vastly deeper set than simply the Wallabies not winning, which I think is ultimately a symptom of the code's malaise rather than a primary cause (although it is of course something which can create a negative feedback loop).

Again, I just don't think people from much less competitive football markets are really capable of understanding this, but Australia's two biggest rugby markets - Sydney and Brisbane - have faced a simultaneous pincer movement from League and AFL, and lost market share among fans of international footy to soccer with the inclusion of the socceroos in every WC since 06.

That's not just money problem, it's a market share problem. You need to have a very tight and competitive product that offers enough prime time content to remain part of the public conversation every week for a very large portion of the year.

With the rise of the AFL in the Rugby states, massive recovery of Rugby League and the incursions of soccer, Rugby simply hasn't kept pace with its 2 day a week, overcomplicated and payTV exclusive club comp.

Winning would help, but frankly those who understand rugby in Australia will tell you that they could see this coming in the early 00s when the then ARU squandered its WC and Lions tour cash on signing big stars from the still fractured RL world instead of getting their product on FTA and broadening their base.

Back then many people were worried that the game would be hollowed out if it did nothing, but winning papered over all the cracks and so no one did shit until it was too late. Back then, it was ironically winning that was the problem as it blinded people.

That's why your argument shits me Te Kaha - winning is nice, but it does f**k all to address structure malaise and frankly it's hard to get to the position where you can win without dealing with these vastly deeper and more substantive problems.

In my view, if Australian rugby is to recover it needs to look inward, cut the cord with Super Rugby and make the NRC its main show for a few years. As part of that it should retire the Reds and Tahs and return them to being representative teams that act as a selection trial for the Wallabies.

It'll need a sugar daddy to do that, but for the long term health of the game it's the best option out of the mess that Super Rugby has created for Australia.

 

[Te Kaha]

I read that article, but I still think it's an ignorant as shit reading of the Aussie sporting landscape.

You and I aren't going to agree on this, but suffice it to say I consider Australian Rugby's problems to be vastly deeper set than simply the Wallabies not winning, which I think is ultimately a symptom of the code's malaise rather than a primary cause (although it is of course something which can create a negative feedback loop).

Again, I just don't think people from much less competitive football markets are really capable of understanding this, but Australia's two biggest rugby markets - Sydney and Brisbane - have faced a simultaneous pincer movement from League and AFL, and lost market share among fans of international footy to soccer with the inclusion of the socceroos in every WC since 06.

That's not just money problem, it's a market share problem. You need to have a very tight and competitive product that offers enough prime time content to remain part of the public conversation every week for a very large portion of the year.

With the rise of the AFL in the Rugby states, massive recovery of Rugby League and the incursions of soccer, Rugby simply hasn't kept pace with its 2 day a week, overcomplicated and payTV exclusive club comp.

Winning would help, but frankly those who understand rugby in Australia will tell you that they could see this coming in the early 00s when the then ARU squandered its WC and Lions tour cash on signing big stars from the still fractured RL world instead of getting their product on FTA and broadening their base.

Back then many people were worried that the game would be hollowed out if it did nothing, but winning papered over all the cracks and so no one did shit until it was too late. Back then, it was ironically winning that was the problem as it blinded people.

That's why your argument shits me Te Kaha - winning is nice, but it does f**k all to address structure malaise and frankly it's hard to get to the position where you can win without dealing with these vastly deeper and more substantive problems.

In my view, if Australian rugby is to recover it needs to look inward, cut the cord with Super Rugby and make the NRC its main show for a few years. As part of that it should retire the Reds and Tahs and return them to being representative teams that act as a selection trial for the Wallabies.

It'll need a sugar daddy to do that, but for the long term health of the game it's the best option out of the mess that Super Rugby has created for Australia.

And that's he kind of plan that will kill the code in Aus for good. Isolation is the dumbest idea ever. You don't have the skills or the money to pull it off.

 

[RoosTah]

And that's he kind of plan that will kill the code in Aus for good. Isolation is the dumbest idea ever. You don't have the skills or the money to pull it off.

That’s why I said it’ll need a sugar daddy like a rugby Lowy to make it work in the face of losses over the short to medium term, but from a developmental standpoint it would be VASTLY better for the long term health of the Code than Super Rugby, which structurally isn’t built in a way that can survive in the modern Australian football marketplace and has slowly been killing the game for a decade.

 

[Te Kaha]

That’s why I said it’ll need a sugar daddy like a rugby Lowy to make it work in the face of losses over the short to medium term, but from a developmental standpoint it would be VASTLY better for the long term health of the Code than Super Rugby, which structurally isn’t built in a way that can survive in the modern Australian football marketplace and has slowly been killing the game for a decade.

The problem is, to keep your best players in it and thus eventually make any sort of profit you need to pay them well and make them want to stay. The Euro clubs will be cheery picking at every point. Plus anybody with any talent will be picked up by cashed up NRL clubs. Its not like the Wannabees jersey will ever keep them at home. its doomed before it starts. Starting again may have worked in an amateur set up, but this is a professional age and trying that is the quickest way to a quick death i can think of.

 

[RoosTah]

The problem is, to keep your best players in it and thus eventually make any sort of profit you need to pay them well and make them want to stay. The Euro clubs will be cheery picking at every point. Plus anybody with any talent will be picked up by cashed up NRL clubs. Its not like the Wannabees jersey will ever keep them at home. its doomed before it starts. Starting again may have worked in an amateur set up, but this is a professional age and trying that is the quickest way to a quick death i can think of.

Again, that’s why it needs the sugar daddy - the point of that person is to keep talent here and allow the new model to develop.

By recasting rugby in Australia as a solely national comp we could support 10 full time teams as opposed to the current set up of 4 full time teams and a bunch of part timers in the NRC.

Then you might eventually have the option of having those sides can participate in a SH champions league type comp prior to the test window.

It’d take a generation to fully bear fruit, but redoubling efforts on the club and local scene in a way that provides both more and FTA prime time content would do a lot of good for the health of the game.

Super Rugby is an unsustainable model for Australia. It simply isn’t competitive enough in our crowded football market with its vast geographical spread and paltry prime time content offerings.

The game will die here either way on its current trajectory. Super Rugby is effectively a cancer on the game here, and whilst the treatment I’m suggesting may sound radical, there’s frankly not much too lose given we’re basically already terminal.

 

[Te Kaha]

Again, that’s why it needs the sugar daddy - the point of that person is to keep talent here and allow the new model to develop.

By recasting rugby in Australia as a solely national comp we could support 10 full time teams as opposed to the current set up of 4 full time teams and a bunch of part timers in the NRC.

Then you might eventually have the option of having those sides can participate in a SH champions league type comp prior to the test window.

It’d take a generation to fully bear fruit, but redoubling efforts on the club and local scene in a way that provides both more and FTA prime time content would do a lot of good for the health of the game.

Super Rugby is an unsustainable model for Australia. It simply isn’t competitive enough in our crowded football market with its vast geographical spread and paltry prime time content offerings.

The game will die here either way on its current trajectory. Super Rugby is effectively a cancer on the game here, and whilst the treatment I’m suggesting may sound radical, there’s frankly not much too lose given we’re basically already terminal.

Its pie in the sky and wishful thinking is what it is. There is no "sugar daddy" waiting to support the code for 20 odd years. Nor will any company bother putting such a third rate comp on free to air prime time.

Deal with what you have not what you want.

Isolating Australian Rugby and starting again will be the end of the code that is for sure.

What you need to do is centralise your talent, You don't have enough quality players for 4 teams let alone 5-10! # professional teams Qld, NSW, ACT\Melbourne should be competitive. Get a better coaching structure. Have the coaches all aim to coach the same systems so that its not such a huge step up to international standard get a decent international coach! Start winning regularly. Make kids want to play for their franchise and national team. Then maybe you can get the comp on free to air. Although given how low it is at the moment, it probably wont cost much for a free to air channel to get it anyway. Its not that hard to do, you just have to be willing to do it. Seems RA doesn't want to, and the franchises are more concerned about their own survival rather than whats better for the game.

 

[RoosTah]

Its pie in the sky and wishful thinking is what it is. There is no "sugar daddy" waiting to support the code for 20 odd years. Nor will any company bother putting such a third rate comp on free to air prime time.

Deal with what you have not what you want.

Isolating Australian Rugby and starting again will be the end of the code that is for sure.

What you need to do is centralise your talent, You don't have enough quality players for 4 teams let alone 5-10! # professional teams Qld, NSW, ACT\Melbourne should be competitive.

Get a better coaching structure. Have the coaches all aim to coach the same systems so that its not such a huge step up to international standard get a decent international coach! Start winning regularly. Make kids want to play for their franchise and national team. Then maybe you can get the comp on free to air. Although given how low it is at the moment, it probably wont cost much for a free to air channel to get it anyway. Its not that hard to do, you just have to be willing to do it. Seems RA doesn't want to, and the franchises are more concerned about their own survival rather than whats better for the game.

Your solution is just as pie in the sky as mine, and relies on telling RA “to win more” without explaining how you get there with a model that is bleeding cash, lacks penetration in the public football discussion and frankly ignores realities on the ground.

Australia isn’t NZ; we don’t have one major football code and a national identity built around our rugby team, so getting unity and cooperation is a lot harder.

Ultimately “working with what we have” is a bit like telling someone with lung cancer to work WITH their cigarettes; it’ll just make the problem worse.

Super Rugby will kill rugby in Australia, so perhaps we just need to sit back and wait until it does so we can rebuild from there

 

[Te Kaha]

Your solution is just as pie in the sky as mine, and relies on telling RA “to win more” without explaining how you get there with a model that is bleeding cash, lacks penetration in the public football discussion and frankly ignores realities on the ground.

What part of " What you need to do is centralise your talent, You don't have enough quality players for 4 teams let alone 5-10! # professional teams Qld, NSW, ACT\Melbourne should be competitive. Get a better coaching structure. Have the coaches all aim to coach the same systems so that its not such a huge step up to international standard get a decent international coach! Start winning regularly. Make kids want to play for their franchise and national team. Then maybe you can get the comp on free to air. Although given how low it is at the moment, it probably wont cost much for a free to air channel to get it anyway." Could you not understand? or think is "pie in the sky".. its all achievable now. if the will is there.

Australia isn’t NZ; we don’t have one major football code and a national identity built around our rugby team, so getting unity and cooperation is a lot harder.

You know that entire statement is bullshit don't you?? If you don't then you need to wake up.

Ultimately “working with what we have” is a bit like telling someone with lung cancer to work WITH their cigarettes; it’ll just make the problem worse.

Rubbish.. Its about working BETTER with what you have.. Even Australians should be able to manage that.

Super Rugby will kill rugby in Australia, so perhaps we just need to sit back and wait until it does so we can rebuild from there

No.. gross stupidity and apathy will.

 

[RoosTah]

What part of " What you need to do is centralise your talent, You don't have enough quality players for 4 teams let alone 5-10! # professional teams Qld, NSW, ACT\Melbourne should be competitive. Get a better coaching structure. Have the coaches all aim to coach the same systems so that its not such a huge step up to international standard get a decent international coach! Start winning regularly. Make kids want to play for their franchise and national team. Then maybe you can get the comp on free to air. Although given how low it is at the moment, it probably wont cost much for a free to air channel to get it anyway." Could you not understand? or think is "pie in the sky".. its all achievable now. if the will is there.


You know that entire statement is bullshit don't you?? If you don't then you need to wake up.


Rubbish.. Its about working BETTER with what you have.. Even Australians should be able to manage that.


No.. gross stupidity and apathy will.

We don’t have enough talent for 10 Super Rugby teams, but we do for a 10 team national comp.

The quality will necessarily be lower, but it will provide critical pathways and half the competition won’t be played in the middle of the night every week, and thus will have more prime time content.

Your solution is basically to apply the NZ model in Australia, but whilst that would be an improvement on the current set up,
it doesn’t address the fact that the Super Rugby model simply offers vastly inferior opportunities to broadcasters and advertisers in Australia when compared with the NRL and AFL.

Super Rugby is the single greatest problem facing Australian Rugby

 

[Te Kaha]

We don’t have enough talent for 10 Super Rugby teams, but we do for a 10 team national comp.

The quality will necessarily be lower, but it will provide critical pathways and half the competition won’t be played in the middle of the night every week, and thus will have more prime time content.

Your solution is basically to apply the NZ model in Australia, but whilst that would be an improvement on the current set up,
it doesn’t address the fact that the Super Rugby model simply offers vastly inferior opportunities to broadcasters and advertisers in Australia when compared with the NRL and AFL.

Super Rugby is the single greatest problem facing Australian Rugby

How exactly will it provide more prime time content if nobody will want to watch it and nobody will broadcast it? And have you never heard of delayed coverage? Nobody will pay to watch or attend a low quality comp when they have alternatives. Your idea will be the end of Professional Rugby in Aus.

 

[RoosTah]

How exactly will it provide more prime time content if nobody will want to watch it and nobody will broadcast it? And have you never heard of delayed coverage? Nobody will pay to watch or attend a low quality comp when they have alternatives. Your idea will be the end of Professional Rugby in Aus.

Nobody watches delayed coverage mate... the ratings numbers for that sort of thing are often so low they don’t get reported.

Sport has to be live in the current intensely interconnected world and is almost pointless paying for if it isn’t.

As for the death of RA, Super Rugby has been slowly killing it for the past decade and it is already considered so unattractive a product the FTA channels don’t even bother bidding for it.

Given that’s our baseline, we could hardly do worse.

 

[Te Kaha]

Nobody watches delayed coverage mate... the ratings numbers for that sort of thing are often so low they don’t get reported.

Sport has to be live in the current intensely interconnected world and is almost pointless paying for if it isn’t.

As for the death of RA, Super Rugby has been slowly killing it for the past decade and it is already considered so unattractive a product the FTA channels don’t even bother bidding for it.

Given that’s our baseline, we could hardly do worse.

Its unattractive because your teams aren't any good. If the started winning regularly it would start appealing to more people. And as for time zones, most people don't watch more than one or two games a week of any sport. You only need Friday and Saturday nights and the occasional Sunday afternoon. Its the quality people want. Australian teams aren't supplying it.