jonny24
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think you can exactly call it "nosediving" if it never caught on in the first place.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Is scrum really necessary?
- Thread starter sigesige00
- Start date
I don't think you can exactly call it "nosediving" if it never caught on in the first place.
I don't think you can exactly call it "nosediving" if it never caught on in the first place.
Exactly. And in England they just signed their biggest ever TV rights deal for the English Super League, whilst the game is actually growing in France and is actually growing in its newer frontiers in places like Ireland (where the game didn't even exist a couple decades ago) and Wales.
Look guys, I know you're trying to make a point, but pointless and uninformed Rugby League bashing isn't doing you any favours.
With respect Nick, if you think the Wallabies are why Rugby is failing in Australia, then you don't understand anything about the football market here... No, Rugby's golden period here coincided with the Super League war, which made Rugby appear much bigger and stronger than it ever was, but the reality was and is that it's never been that big. League got it's act together professional, and so did soccer, and meanwhile Rugby's overly technical nature and the lack of FTA content has seen people either unable to access the game or feel it's overly esoteric.
I'll put it to you this way - even in it's heyday back in 2003 the Rugby World Cup FINAL in which Australia was involved got around the same number of viewers as this year's SOO matches and NRL GF. Meanwhile, the Bledisloe back then - a fairer comparison to Origin - topped out at about 2 million viewers, whilst now it struggles to get 1 million.
Last edited:
William18
First XV
The thing with league is that the play the ball is essential to having a running game. The only reason there is a running game is because the defence is back 10 metres. If league had proper rucks and no tackle count then scoring a try would be easy since you make metres on every hit up. It would actually create a disincentive to spread the ball as hit ups gain you metres and don't leave your ball carriers isolated.
Isn't the fact that New Zealand play the best rugby and New Zealand are the best at rugby evidence that we have the balance right in the game? The All Blacks are testament that attacking rugby is rewarded. Rugby may be somewhat struggling in Australia but it is thriving in other parts of the world.
But doesn't this back up Nick's point? The Bledisloe used to get 2 million viewers and now it gets 1 million viewers? So rugby union was more popular in Australia when the national team was doing well. Nick never said that when the Wallabies were doing well rugby was more popular than league. I don't see why the comparison to league is very relevant at all. What is clear is that the people watching the Wallabies has fallen in actual terms as well as comparative. Union doesn't have to beat league to be stronger in Australia - it just needs to do better than it is at the moment.
No, because it discounts the fact that Rugby was massively buoyed at the time by people's disillusionment with League after the Super League war and fails to appreciate that even during this golden era it still couldn't get close to beating League ratings wise.
You're right in saying beating league isn't what's needed to be considered a success, but the notion that Wallaby success will fix everything is a perfect representation of everything wrong with how rugby is run in this country. Look at soccer - the socceroos couldn't beat the UAE, but the supporting framework of the A-League makes that largely irrelevant.
Rugby in Aus is falling to pieces rapidly, and it's not because the Wallabies suck.
Last edited:
goodNumber10
International
But it is interlinked.
Union in Australia imho is suffering because they've spread themselves too thin trying to break out and spread the game they've made it difficult to build any kind of cohesive stronghold. It's really no coincidence that their dip in form has run almost parallel to the reduction in spectators and the increase in teams.
They've spread themselves too thin trying to create new markets in parts of the country that just aren't sustainable and have diluted their quality playing resources too much.
3 teams was enough for fans and players.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I disagree.
If it was true that we were spread too thin, then neither the Reds nor the Waratahs would have won titles in the past 4 years and the Force wouldn't have been pushing for the finals this year.
Indeed, the Force are an unqualified success story in terms of popularity in Perth and it was definitely worthwhile putting a team there.
No, it's not that we're spread too thin, it's that the game is massively underexposed and seen as extremely esoteric by a public who find Australian football and rugby league, faster, easier to interpret and vastly more accessible.
Uhm, actually it is. There were 10 South Africans in the Force's extensive squad this year. The teams have been spread too thin, and then they bring players from other countries to fill the gaps.
Gareth Delve
Danny Cipriani
Jacques Potgieter
Alby Mathewson
Daniel Braid
Sias Ebersohn
Wilhelm Steenkamp
To name just a few. In the Super Rugby tournament, Australia has been hands down the country with the most imported players in their Squads.
Having teams qualify for the finals doesn't say much, as every country is guaranteed to have at least 1 team in the playoffs, regardless their position on the log.
The reason why the Force is so popular is because of the 50 000+ South Africans living in Perth who would rather watch Union than league as it is not televised in South Africa.
There's South Africans in the Force, but only 1 in the Waratahs... Either way, all that means is that the talent is actually still fairly concentrated as the new sides are propped by foreigners, so how does that support the "talent too thin" claim?
SixteenSixtySix
Academy Player
On the under-exposed part, that is quite true with my country as an example. You see football everywhere and rugby is nowhere to be seen.
Despite Australia currently having plenty of great players, overall the nation's quality is inconsistent imoo and most players available are mediocre.
Well, Malaysia I imagine is a little trickier as it doesn't really have a strong rugby tradition that transitioned into the professional era. In Australia we have, but the reality is that if you go to the big markets of Sydney and Melbourne the sports news is 90% Rugby League and Australian Football respectively, with the rest filling in the gaps.
Well, Actually, it makes a dualistic effect. You don't see Aussies in South African teams now, do you??
It's because we have too much talented players, and that we don't have space for all of them in our squads. We are even going to be the first nation to have 6 teams in the tournament.
I think your one-eyed view on this is a bit annoying, and instead of taking in what we are saying, to disagree with EVERYTHING is not the right way to go about.
SixteenSixtySix
Academy Player
True, didn't consider that point
One eyed view? What are you talking about? I'm telling you what it's like in Australia based on my knowledge of the Australian sports market and my experience living here all my life. I don't try to tell you about what the problems with South African rugby are because I'm not there and I just frankly don't have enough information on it.
The whole reason I'm responding is because I always hear all this hypothesising from South Africans and Kiwis about the problems with Australian rugby - often it being narrowed to the wallabies - and it annoys me because you guys just don't get what the environment is like here.
Rugby in South Africa is way bigger than it is here, but you know what? The NRL and the AFL are both worth more than all of South Africa or NZ's entire rugby infrastructure. The fact that you can't see how that's a problem for Australian rugby is frankly bewildering.
Last edited:
I get that it's a problem, but the past actions of the ARU and playing styles as well as the disorderly conduct of the players have all been damaging to the Wallabies, and to rugby union in Australia. It was the ARU who started with the ELV's a few years ago, which brought very mixed reviews and also made a lot of Rugby Unions and their fans angry. People saw that the ELV's and the variations being tried, was to remove things such as the scrums out of the game of rugby union. Which would have tarnished the identity of Rugby Union.
Instead of people in Australia trying to change the game, to benefit themselves for how short a period it might be, their views were very shortsighted. They should rather have focused, and still try to get the core right, and expand from there. get the grassroots level in a good condition to allow a steady influx of players.
It has been mentioned on quite a few threads that ARU has brought this onto themselves, and your repeated attempts at trying to revive this debate is getting rather tiresome. You know what my stance is on this, and it's not going to change, and no matter what you try to say, I won't change my mind.
Heineken, I don't get what your problem here is, I really don't. Your responding to reply I made to Nick, who was perpetuating the false notion that all that needs to happen in Aus is for the wallabies to start winning. It's an irritating and tiresome argument, hence why I was tying to put it to bed.
i wasn't talking about the ELVs or anything of that nature and I'm not now, even if you feel like bringing them up as a sort of pointless straw-man. Ironically my point has been the ARU have had their priorities wrong for 10 years and have managed the game poorly, but whatever, argue with yourself about something else if that's your thing. Or maybe you just don't need to reply at all next time, since you find my points on Australian rugby so annoying.
i wasn't talking about the ELVs or anything of that nature and I'm not now, even if you feel like bringing them up as a sort of pointless straw-man. Ironically my point has been the ARU have had their priorities wrong for 10 years and have managed the game poorly, but whatever, argue with yourself about something else if that's your thing. Or maybe you just don't need to reply at all next time, since you find my points on Australian rugby so annoying.
let's make a deal?
I would shut up and not respond, if you stay on topic and not derail every thread into a whole discussion of how the Australian Rugby System is in a downward spiral.
Sounds good?
I'd cop a little more easily if the last three pages weren't all league bashing from people responding to SimonG's obvious trolling.
But fair chop - will leave it here.
goodNumber10
International
Because players like Beale for example have been playing in diluted weak teams... and not in strong teams getting exposed to high end knock out rugby. You had JOC and Beale both playing for the Rebels and getting a pounding and finsihing their season early. Additionally Pocock and Cummins etc... again all finsihing their season before the knock outs where the real intensity comes in.
Tahs and Reds have only just got to the stage where they are competing for the title again - and lets face facts Reds went from being champions to getting pumped in the space of 6 monhts.
Australian rugby was at it's strongest from 1990-2002. They had two super rugby teams, increased to 3 and the bulk of the Wallabies were selected from that, their units were exposed to high class rugby and their was a consistency in playing style between the super rugby franchises and the national team.
It just doesn't have playing pool to sustain 5 professional teams, one of the remits of the NRC is to specifically grow the talent pool for super Rugby, and that's why SUPER Rugby players are being made to play NRC (that and profile obviously).
Anyway, that's just how i see it mate.
I agree a bit here, the Simon G stuff is getting incredibly tedious but people shouldn't respond. i have him blocked now it makes the place much easier to navigate.
Also, will you answer my point about the scrum being a tactical weapon or do you agree with me
Last edited:
In all honesty it's been done the wrong way around for sure - we shouldn't have had two extra teams BEFORE having a national professional comp and that's why we've had to import foreign players, because the jump from amateur Shute Shield footy is just too big. All the same, the game does need as many players as possible exposed to that high level and Super Rugby has been the only feasible way to do that just because of the way the game transitioned into professionalism here (no national club comp existing when it went pro). As for needing teams in the finals, I'm a little skeptical of that claim, as this year we had two teams in the finals, so theoretically if that's a factor we ought to have done better in the Rugby Championship than South Africa, who only had one team.
I agree a bit here, the Simon G stuff is getting incredibly tedious but people shouldn't respond. i have him blocked now it makes the place much easier to navigate.
Also, will you answer my point about the scrum being a tactical weapon or do you agree with me
I agree that the scrum is a tactical weapon in Rugby, but I don't think it's what defines the extra depth in rugby, which is the claim that was being made. Scrums absolutely have a tactical element, but even in their reduced form in League they do, and my original point was always that rugby's depth comes from rucking more than scrummaging, because that fundamentally changes the way teams view possession when compared with League.
Maybe that's another point for South Africa and why we love this area in Union.
In Afrikaans we have "Skrum" for scrum, and "Losskrum" for ruck, which is actually loose scrum in english. these terms are some of the earliest rugby terms a kid learns when playing the game in SA. It's a fundamental part of rugby union, and should never be removed from the game.
