• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Is scrum really necessary?

2nd or 3rd best "in the world" is hardly a ringing endorsement when there are less than half a dozen serious teams, and in that half dozen two of them have Rugby as the major sport. Rugby is not in a position to be able to afford a weak Australia. When I think of Rugby (in my time which is the last 20 yrs) I had seen Australia as the second biggest Rugby team. They were one of the major carriers of the sport. The Bledisloe Cup was the biggest draw in Rugby...box office. The build up, the match ups, the packed stadium, the passion and excitement. All gone. Every sport needs box office. Next week I shall be glued to the tv (as will approx 400 million around the globe) to watch Barcelona vs Real Madrid. The equivalent in Rugby was the Bledisloe Cup until it became what is now...just another test match with a half ar$ed Aussie public and a pale shadow of an Aussie team. It's sad it really is.
Why can't we afford a weak Australia anymore than a weak South Africa, England or France? There are about 10 rugby nations who are any way to decent - not everyone can be ranked in the top 2 in the world! Ask any New Zealander, it has never been about the Bledisloe. It's always has been about South Africa. They are our equal and our old rivals. Ideally every rugby nation would be as strong as possible but unfortunately all rugby nations go through ups and downs.
 
2nd or 3rd best "in the world" is hardly a ringing endorsement when there are less than half a dozen serious teams, and in that half dozen two of them have Rugby as the major sport.

Rugby is not in a position to be able to afford a weak Australia. When I think of Rugby (in my time which is the last 20 yrs) I had seen Australia as the second biggest Rugby team. They were one of the major carriers of the sport. The Bledisloe Cup was the biggest draw in Rugby...box office. The build up, the match ups, the packed stadium, the passion and excitement. All gone. Every sport needs box office. Next week I shall be glued to the tv (as will approx 400 million around the globe) to watch Barcelona vs Real Madrid. The equivalent in Rugby was the Bledisloe Cup until it became what is now...just another test match with a half ar$ed Aussie public and a pale shadow of an Aussie team. It's sad it really is.

Soccer troll, you've never played rugby, then you don't understand the difference between sports like rugby and soccer. The professional soccer can be played by athletes of 60 kgs, while the professional rugby can only be played by athletes of 100 kgs on average (The average weight of Super Rugby players is 103 kgs). In the sports world, there are more athletes from 60 kgs than 100 kgs athletes, so that means there is potentially more athletes able to play soccer and less athletes capable to play rugby, even apart from the differences between the lesions between both sports. In rugby you can stay quadriplegic in a scrum or by a spear tackle.

Anyway, you should compare rugby with other sports, not just the most popular sport in the world, and against other sports, rugby takes advantage. It's one of the fastest growing sports in recent decades, even if it hurts recognize.

The FIBA World Cup (Basketball) is a mess. Slight ratings, empty stadiums and even NBA players refuse to participate because they consider it a waste of time, they prefer to take a vacation and go to Cancun. The first tier level men's professional basketball league in Europe, ACB League, is another disaster. With little audience and empty stadiums because Spaniards don't support another sport other than soccer. Here in Argentina's golden generation of basketball has less impact than the Pumas, because here basketball is a very very small sport.

And what about volleyball? The FIVB Volleyball World Championship is another disaster, you can't compare it with the Rugby World Cup. And what about Rugby League? Their world cup is the State of Origin because the Rugby League World Cup is light years behind of Rugby World Cup. Keep doing this exercise with other team sports such as handball or hockey and you find that the Rugby World Cup will be the most important sports event next year. :D

Then my dear soccer troll, after reviewing all other sports you will reach the conclusion that the most sports in the world has few countries with professional involvement, currently the only non-professional rugby team on the Top 20 IRB teams is Uruguay.

Oh, my dear soccer troll. I have a question for you. Your country isn't competitive in your favorite sport (soccer). What do you feel?
 
Last edited:
Soccer troll, you've never played rugby, then you don't understand the difference between sports like rugby and soccer. The professional soccer can be played by athletes of 60 kgs, while the professional rugby can only be played by athletes of 100 kgs on average (The average weight of Super Rugby players is 103 kgs). In the sports world, there are more athletes from 60 kgs than 100 kgs athletes, so that means there is potentially more athletes able to play soccer and less athletes capable to play rugby, even apart from the differences between the lesions between both sports. In rugby you can stay quadriplegic in a scrum or by a spear tackle.

Anyway, you should compare rugby with other sports, not just the most popular sport in the world, and against other sports, rugby takes advantage. It's one of the fastest growing sports in recent decades, even if it hurts recognize.

The FIBA World Cup (Basketball) is a mess. Slight ratings, empty stadiums and even NBA players refuse to participate because they consider it a waste of time, they prefer to take a vacation and go to Cancun. The first tier level men's professional basketball league in Europe, ACB League, is another disaster. With little audience and empty stadiums because Spaniards don't support another sport other than soccer. Here in Argentina's golden generation of basketball has less impact than the Pumas, because here basketball is a very very small sport.

And what about volleyball? The FIVB Volleyball World Championship is another disaster, you can't compare it with the Rugby World Cup. And what about Rugby League? Their world cup is the State of Origin because the Rugby League World Cup is light years behind of Rugby World Cup. Keep doing this exercise with other team sports such as handball or hockey and you find that the Rugby World Cup will be the most important sports event next year. :D

Then my dear soccer troll, after reviewing all other sports you will reach the conclusion that the most sports in the world has few countries with professional involvement, currently the only non-professional rugby team on the Top 20 IRB teams is Uruguay.

Oh, my dear soccer troll. I have a question for you. Your country isn't competitive in your favorite sport (soccer). What do you feel?
giphy.gif
 
Why can't we afford a weak Australia anymore than a weak South Africa, England or France? There are about 10 rugby nations who are any way to decent - not everyone can be ranked in the top 2 in the world! Ask any New Zealander, it has never been about the Bledisloe. It's always has been about South Africa. They are our equal and our old rivals. Ideally every rugby nation would be as strong as possible but unfortunately all rugby nations go through ups and downs.

Fully aware of the rivalry with South Africa (most Rugby folk are aware of the NZ players who were so desperate to compete against SA they disgraced themselves by travelling to play there during apartheid)..heard the great Sean Fitz talk about winning a series in SA. With due respect to South Africa, it's Australia who were the box office match up with NZ. The reasons for this are disputed, but I would say a number of factors; Australia has a bigger international profile as a nation (aided by being Anglo), bigger stadiums, bigger media which generated more publicity, being next door neighbours, the gold jerseys (and the contrast with black), the running style of play, the scarves, flags and songs (waltzing Matilda by banjo bloke worked a treat), the excitement generated by the public. A massive national event. All gone.

10 teams is a nonsense. When's the last time Sco, Wales or Ireland beat NZ? We are largely the filler. Union in England is not high profile..it's southern public school based, while in France its south west based. We look toward the three teams in the SH as the power base of the sport...and with one in decline that is what Rugby cannot afford.

Soccer troll, you've never played rugby, then you don't understand the difference between sports like rugby and soccer. The professional soccer can be played by athletes of 60 kgs, while the professional rugby can only be played by athletes of 100 kgs on average (The average weight of Super Rugby players is 103 kgs). In the sports world, there are more athletes from 60 kgs than 100 kgs athletes, so that means there is potentially more athletes able to play soccer and less athletes capable to play rugby, even apart from the differences between the lesions between both sports. In rugby you can stay quadriplegic in a scrum or by a spear tackle.

Anyway, you should compare rugby with other sports, not just the most popular sport in the world, and against other sports, rugby takes advantage. It's one of the fastest growing sports in recent decades, even if it hurts recognize.

The FIBA World Cup (Basketball) is a mess. Slight ratings, empty stadiums and even NBA players refuse to participate because they consider it a waste of time, they prefer to take a vacation and go to Cancun. The first tier level men's professional basketball league in Europe, ACB League, is another disaster. With little audience and empty stadiums because Spaniards don't support another sport other than soccer. Here in Argentina's golden generation of basketball has less impact than the Pumas, because here basketball is a very very small sport.

And what about volleyball? The FIVB Volleyball World Championship is another disaster, you can't compare it with the Rugby World Cup. And what about Rugby League? Their world cup is the State of Origin because the Rugby League World Cup is light years behind of Rugby World Cup. Keep doing this exercise with other team sports such as handball or hockey and you find that the Rugby World Cup will be the most important sports event next year. :D

Then my dear soccer troll, after reviewing all other sports you will reach the conclusion that the most sports in the world has few countries with professional involvement, currently the only non-professional rugby team on the Top 20 IRB teams is Uruguay.

Oh, my dear soccer troll. I have a question for you. Your country isn't competitive in your favorite sport (soccer). What do you feel?

The decline in interest in the game in Australia has got zilch to do with my comment on football. I only mentioned Barcelona vs Real Madrid as an example of a box office game in sport. Football dwarfs everything so obviously I wasnt comparing,..hence your insecure post about why I didn't compare other sports with Rugby was pointless. In my previous posts I didn't even mention any specific box office matchups in sport. I could have said Federer vs Nadal, or Mayweather vs Pacquiaio (he dreams), or Europe vs USA in golf's Ryder Cup. NZ vs Aus used to be Union's box office match up, and it's sad that it's no longer the case.

League followers bring up the decline in Union in Australia a lot. Perhaps they are crowing (though their own code is just two regions) but they are right to talk about it as it is a major issue you can't hide away from. The fact is League is in direct competition with Union and in the Rugby hotbed of Sydney/Brisbane league is dominant.

Regards our football team...the greatest sporting achievement in the country's history was when we got to the quarterfinal of the 1990 World Cup. When the players returned home over half a million people lined the streets of Dublin. See the thing about football is the competition is very difficult with so many competing teams that just qualifying for the World Cup is an achievement, never mind getting all the way to the quarterfinals. There are no free passes.



in terms of recent news, the past few weeks have been dominated by our country's biggest sports star, former Manchester United and Ireland captain Roy Keane, releasing a book.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fully aware of the rivalry with South Africa (most Rugby folk are aware of the NZ players who were so desperate to compete against SA they disgraced themselves by travelling to play there during apartheid)..heard the great Sean Fitz talk about winning a series in SA. With due respect to South Africa, it's Australia who were the box office match up with NZ. The reasons for this are disputed, but I would say a number of factors; Australia has a bigger international profile as a nation (aided by being Anglo), bigger stadiums, bigger media which generated more publicity, being next door neighbours, the gold jerseys (and the contrast with black), the running style of play, the scarves, flags and songs (waltzing Matilda by banjo bloke worked a treat), the excitement generated by the public. A massive national event. All gone.

10 teams is a nonsense. When's the last time Sco, Wales or Ireland beat NZ? We are largely the filler. Union in England is not high profile..it's southern public school based, while in France its south west based. We look toward the three teams in the SH as the power base of the sport...and with one in decline that is what Rugby cannot afford.



The decline in interest in the game in Australia has got zilch to do with my comment on football. I only mentioned Barcelona vs Real Madrid as an example of a box office game in sport. Football dwarfs everything so obviously I wasnt comparing,..hence your insecure post about why I didn't compare other sports with Rugby was pointless. In my previous posts I didn't even mention any specific box office matchups in sport. I could have said Federer vs Nadal, or Mayweather vs Pacquiaio (he dreams), or Europe vs USA in golf's Ryder Cup. NZ vs Aus used to be Union's box office match up, and it's sad that it's no longer the case.

League followers bring up the decline in Union in Australia a lot. Perhaps they are crowing (though their own code is just two regions) but they are right to talk about it as it is a major issue you can't hide away from. The fact is League is in direct competition with Union and in the Rugby hotbed of Sydney/Brisbane league is dominant.

Regards our football team...the greatest sporting achievement in the country's history was when we got to the quarterfinal of the 1990 World Cup. When the players returned home over half a million people lined the streets of Dublin. See the thing about football is the competition is very difficult with so many competing teams that just qualifying for the World Cup is an achievement, never mind getting all the way to the quarterfinals. There are no free passes.



in terms of recent news, the past few weeks have been dominated by our country's biggest sports star, former Manchester United and Ireland captain Roy Keane, releasing a book.


The bold parts are where you are wrong.

South Africa contributes to more than 50% of the revenue generated from the Super Rugby. This has been well documented on this forum and other sites. South Africa are also doing more on the media coverage, because our Sports Broadcaster, Supersport, caters for the entire Africa, so there are a lot more viewership.

As for Stadiums, Apart from the Sydney stadium, there aren't such a big difference in the numbers of seats per stadium between South Africa and Australia

Then the running style of play, which used to be the case, has been diminishing the last few years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, having been to NZ, with my NH sens of rugby ;-) I felt more rivalry with Aussies than Saffies ... And I confirmed it after having been to Australia also. I do not say anything against SA, just noticed that ...

And thanks guys to still consider us French as a major nation in Rugby, seeing how ridiculous we are atm !

Even if the wallabies are the shadow of what they used to be, they're still gona kick us next month !!!
 
The Bledisloe Cup (the most famous trophy in Rugby outside of the Webb Ellis Cup). I had been reading an article on the declining television audience in Australia for the game since 2006, when I came across this;

http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/rugby-losing-shine-in-australia-3068434

Rugby losing shine in Australia

Published: Monday October 12, 2009

Rugby is suffering from declining crowds, ratings and interest in the crowded Australian sports market, local media reported on Monday, citing market research commissioned by the game's administrators.

Crowds for test matches had fallen from 617,555 in 2006 to 386,287 this year, or more than 37 percent, while attendances at Super 14 matches had dropped from 115,317 to 75,393 in the same period, the Australian newspaper said, citing the report commissioned by the Australian Rugby Union.

"Watching rugby is one of the easier engagement activities, yet we've been losing eyeballs for tests since 2006 and for the first time Super rugby in 2009," the paper quoted an excerpt of the report as saying.

Rugby competes with Australian rules, rugby league and soccer for hearts and wallets in the country's saturated sports market, and was losing out in most measures.

The research, tracking the game's 'brand health' for the March-June quarter, said rugby was the least entertaining, innovative, grass roots-orientated and social of the four codes and cricket.

"Rugby's brand equity (brand image statements) is diluted by both soccer and cricket with no one attribute being owned by rugby," the report said.

Passionates turning away

"Bluntly put, consumers are not passionate about rugby. They favour AFL and NRL, which tend to be more tribal. Disconcertingly, even our passionates are turning away.

"So overall, rugby has the poorest health, but the main areas of disadvantage are in passion and salience (advertising recall) versus other sports."

Awareness of rugby union advertising had declined 13 percent among sports enthusiasts over the past three years, while rugby union membership had fallen 14 per cent from 32,837 to 28,027 over the past year. Participation dropped two per cent from 193,382 in 2006 to 183,810 in 2008, it said.




I hadn't googled for a single source prior to this morning. All my previous comments on this subject were based on simple observation (the apathy toward the game in Australia during last years Lions tour was really the wake up call for me), empty seats, lack of build up/advertising, the crowd that show up are quiet and look disinterested...so to see these market research "trolls" validate everything I have stated...I take no satisfaction.

I love(d) the Bledisloe Cup...for me it was one of the unmissables of the sporting year. Rugby's box office game. To see what it has become is a shame. They took it to Hong Kong (which to my complete ignorance due to the dying publicity here I wasn't even aware) to play an extra game in an attempt to make some much needed income..but abandoned the location after lack of interest. The decline in Australia effects its appeal outside.

This gets back to the original point of the thread (which Sige started btw)...the game has changed, become bogged down with low risk forward play and more bulked up brutes, less open running Rugby, flair dead...and its my belief that this change has impacted most in Australia because they see the contrast with Rugby league where attacking running is king. They see the growing contrast between the two codes up close; Union has nosedived while League's ratings are goin through the roof. I'm becoming more and more aware of the NRL due to this. Union is my code though, it's what I was brought up in (so there's a bias) and i much prefer rucks...which is why change is needed to get back to the best aspects of what Union had..an emphasis on open, attacking running Rugby. France wont get back to beng France with the current set up. The SH is the power base of Rugby Union, it is not under the radar of other sports there...but with that not now being the case in Australia the sports governing body is losing one of the pillars of the game and doing nothing about it.
 
The Bledisloe Cup (the most famous trophy in Rugby outside of the Webb Ellis Cup).

Utter Utter Garbage!

Calcutta Cup, Six Nations, The Grand Slam all are trophies known far wider than the Bled.

Please stop trolling this forum, it's getting really really tiresome having to read this tripe.
 
Simon G,

Explain to me once again where Australia's lack of interest has anything to do with the rules of the game - or the level of spectacle it creates? So far you have shown nothing to support your hypothesis that things like scrums lessen the spectacle, or that running rugby is less prevalent. So far the Bledisloe Cup has had a 12-12 score line, 51-20 scoreline and a 28-29 scoreline (so 15 tries in 3 matches). Outline where running rugby is dead? Did you bother to watch any of the games? Or did you just speculate how the crowds looked disinterested? The crowd for the Gold Coast was very low (as it has been for most sporting events there this year) - however the crowd in Brisbane was 45,100 (which isn't bad considering Australia was at Lang Park, had already lost the series, and had couple of weeks in the media), while Eden Park had sold out. Despite your opinion on the Lions tour, all tests were essentially sold out (with the third test getting 83,700 people through the gates).

Regardless, most people would agree Australia is doing poorly at the moment. The interest isn't there because Australia has been winning at only around 50% for the last two years, has been constantly filled with controversy, hasn't beaten the All Blacks since 2011 and haven't won the Bledisloe Cup in over a decade. It's not rocket science as to why rugby is not doing well. So the problems you seem to be having with the game (which it can't help with your head being so far up your arse that you don't actually watch the game) aren't necessary the same as Australian fans.

As a global sport rugby audience figures are growing, it doesn't need you watching it to survive. So why not jog on and watch something else without *****ing on a rugby forum about how it's not as good as you remember..

Utter Utter Garbage!

Calcutta Cup, Six Nations, The Grand Slam all are trophies known far wider than the Bled.

Please stop trolling this forum, it's getting really really tiresome having to read this tripe.

In the Northern Hemisphere maybe...I don't think I can ever recall anyone saying they are excited to see who wins the Culcutta Cup, unless they are English or Scottish (the fourth best team in the world verse the...8th...at the moment). People in NZ care far more about the Bledisloe than a Grand Slam (some care more about it than the Tri Nations). I'd say the 6 Nations was bigger sure, almost as big as the Rugby Championship (it is a 'best of the rest' tournament after all ;)).

Even the Currie Cup is more well known than the Bledisloe cup!!

Well one is a domestic competition and the other is an international series...but yes Heineken, South Africa is very important too ;).
 
Last edited:
Rugby is dying around the World, jojojojojojojojojojojo:

First WC in Europe (RWC 1991) - Total attendance: 1,007,760
Last WC in Europe (RWC 2007) - Total attendance: 2,263,223

First WC in New Zealand (RWC 1987) - Total attendance 604,500
Last WC in New Zealand (RWC 2011) - Total attendance 1,477,294

FIBA Basketball World Cup 2014:

Final match: USA 129 - Serbia 92 Attendance: 13,673 :lol:

Rugby World Cup 2011:

Final match: New Zealand 8 - France 7 Attendance: 61,079 ;)

:sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011::sex011:
 
Last edited:
In the Northern Hemisphere maybe...I don't think I can ever recall anyone saying they are excited to see who wins the Culcutta Cup, unless they are English or Scottish

Hence me saying it's bigger than the Bled - the population in England is double that of Australia and New Zealand combined.

The Belidsloe might be big across the tasman but it's a mere ripple in the sea compared to the 6 Nations and all the history and tradition that comes with it. The Six Nations is the biggest rugby tournament outside the World Cup - i'm pretty sure it's viewing figures, and earning figures dwarf anything the SH can drum up.
 
"six nations the biggest outside the world cup" :lol:

John Bull, little englander...take your pick.

Calcutta cup ...more lolz.

Using the population "argument"...any cricket game that India play in is the biggest. Ashes? Pah. India vs Bangladesh et al. dwarf it.

Nick...no causal (or neutral) fan has ever tuned in for Scotland-England. Regarding less running, France are the prime example of the decline in this. They have openly "adopted the foreign stodgy game"..they have stopped being France, and have been influenced by the low risk forward dominated game around them. They are alien to what they were. Clive Woodward brought in a rigidness to England and others have followed suit. NZ have maintained their brilliance so im not referring to them. Bear in mind there are only 5 or 6 serious teams we are talking about here...so it only takes a change in emphasis from two or three teams for the sport to be transformed. League folk joke about backs in Union getting cold. Players are bigger and more bulked up than ever; the brutish, forward dominated emphasis stifles creativity and flair. It's this that has turned Aussies off (they would discard the scrum if they could). Market research in Australia states the sport as it is is not entertaining. The sport has changed and rather than change with it to maintain the best aspects of the game, nothing has been done.
 
"six nations the biggest outside the world cup" :lol:

John Bull, little englander...take your pick.

Calcutta cup ...more lolz.

Using the population "argument"...any cricket game that India play in is the biggest. Ashes? Pah. India vs Bangladesh et al. dwarf it.

Nick...no causal (or neutral) fan has ever tuned in for Scotland-England. Regarding less running, France are the prime example of the decline in this. They have openly "adopted the foreign stodgy game"..they have stopped being France, and have been influenced by the low risk forward dominated game around them. They are alien to what they were. Clive Woodward brought in a rigidness to England and others have followed suit. NZ have maintained their brilliance so im not referring to them. Bear in mind there are only 5 or 6 serious teams we are talking about here...so it only takes a change in emphasis from two or three teams for the sport to be transformed. League folk joke about backs in Union getting cold. Players are bigger and more bulked up than ever; the brutish, forward dominated emphasis stifles creativity and flair. It's this that has turned Aussies off (they would discard the scrum if they could). Market research in Australia states the sport as it is is not entertaining. The sport has changed and rather than change with it to maintain the best aspects of the game, nothing has been done.

images
 
no I'm sorry you're all wrong fk the Bleeding slow cup it's too violent anyways, it's aaaaaall about the. Well the Garibaaa...the fkk's this called again...oh yes the Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy which I assure you I did not just copy paste right now. Yeah ! It's aaaaall about that !!
 
SimonG clearly doesn't watch rugby. There were some god awful test matches in the early 2000's like in 2002 we beat Australia 12-6. What Simon G suffers from is survivorship bias. You forget all about the crap games and only remember the Toutai Kefu 29-26 and the Jonah Lomu 39-35 thrillers. Someone looking back on our era in 10 years time will say it was a great time because of the 27-25 win to South Africa or Ellis Park 2013. They will forget about dross like the 12-12.
 
Next time someone makes a favourable comparison between here and Planet Rugby, I'm going to remember this thread and laugh.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top