Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
A new three-code star for Wallabies?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RoosTah" data-source="post: 652393" data-attributes="member: 12207"><p>Look, as I said before, I really don't care about the penalty argument. It was always just a way of showing you how many variables an outsider's view on sports they don't get misses. </p><p></p><p>You can deride Rugby League as being "headless chickens" if you like - if there's one thing they're used to it's being looked down on by others - but just because you don't like the play the ball doesn't mean your argument for changing it makes any more sense. It's just the opinion of someone who really prefers Union, but wants League's speed.</p><p></p><p>As for the "product", Soccer is the biggest sport for the same reason religions like Catholicism are big - they got to their target market's first. Rugby was always hamstrung by the elitist attitude of too many of its early pommy adherents. If the "product" of soccer was simply "better" than the competition, then in markets like Australia soccer would rake in close to half a billion every year in TV revenue, rather than the $40 million it currently gets. The trouble with the theory that it's big because it's a great product is its dismal failure in places where other forms of football have taken hold first. Indeed, from what my Irish friends tell me both Hurling and Gaelic Football have significantly higher average attendances than soccer does in your country.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately sport is first and foremost about identity and tribalism. It's the reason Australians and English people can develop an interest in a game like Cricket in spite of its very lengthy and playing time and long spells with little action. Try explaining to a Japanese person (I lived there for some years) why we watch Cricket, and the game itself doesn't really cut it as an explanation. </p><p></p><p>This all also goes to why your attempts to change the rules in Rugby League make about as much sense as the American suggestion that soccer ought to ditch the goalie; the stories and identities are also built around a certain fundamental nature to what the sport is about on the field, so if you mess with its DNA you mess with its identity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RoosTah, post: 652393, member: 12207"] Look, as I said before, I really don't care about the penalty argument. It was always just a way of showing you how many variables an outsider's view on sports they don't get misses. You can deride Rugby League as being "headless chickens" if you like - if there's one thing they're used to it's being looked down on by others - but just because you don't like the play the ball doesn't mean your argument for changing it makes any more sense. It's just the opinion of someone who really prefers Union, but wants League's speed. As for the "product", Soccer is the biggest sport for the same reason religions like Catholicism are big - they got to their target market's first. Rugby was always hamstrung by the elitist attitude of too many of its early pommy adherents. If the "product" of soccer was simply "better" than the competition, then in markets like Australia soccer would rake in close to half a billion every year in TV revenue, rather than the $40 million it currently gets. The trouble with the theory that it's big because it's a great product is its dismal failure in places where other forms of football have taken hold first. Indeed, from what my Irish friends tell me both Hurling and Gaelic Football have significantly higher average attendances than soccer does in your country. Ultimately sport is first and foremost about identity and tribalism. It's the reason Australians and English people can develop an interest in a game like Cricket in spite of its very lengthy and playing time and long spells with little action. Try explaining to a Japanese person (I lived there for some years) why we watch Cricket, and the game itself doesn't really cut it as an explanation. This all also goes to why your attempts to change the rules in Rugby League make about as much sense as the American suggestion that soccer ought to ditch the goalie; the stories and identities are also built around a certain fundamental nature to what the sport is about on the field, so if you mess with its DNA you mess with its identity. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
A new three-code star for Wallabies?
Top