Super Rugby 2024 General Chat

[Wilson]

The game is a worse spectacle than it was. It is rarely entertaining compared to AFL, NRL, NHL and Football. Ball in play is getting less. People aren’t going to games and not signing up for pay tv. What else do want to show you the game needs to be tweaked? It’s bloody dying. Let’s see how the crowds pan at the ‘Super Round’ in Melbourne? I’m going.

Ball in play time is not the be all and end all of entertainment, but it's worth noting it is increasing and has been increasing since rugby went professional:

Has ball in play time reached its optimal level?

The 1995 Rugby World Cup averaged 26 minutes of ball-in-play time and that is expected to near 38 minutes for France

www.rugbypass.com

 

[Slim 293]

The game is a worse spectacle than it was. It is rarely entertaining compared to AFL, NRL, NHL and Football. Ball in play is getting less. People aren’t going to games and not signing up for pay tv. What else do want to show you the game needs to be tweaked? It’s bloody dying. Let’s see how the crowds pan at the ‘Super Round’ in Melbourne? I’m going.

Again, this sounds more like an Australian rugby problem, and not a rugby problem.

Ball in play has icreased.

And the game is certainly not a worse spectacle than what it's been in the past.

2009 is one example when teams didn't want to hold the ball.

 

[dru]

The game is a worse spectacle than it was. It is rarely entertaining compared to AFL, NRL, NHL and Football. Ball in play is getting less. People aren’t going to games and not signing up for pay tv. What else do want to show you the game needs to be tweaked? It’s bloody dying. Let’s see how the crowds pan at the ‘Super Round’ in Melbourne? I’m going.

Yoda, let's start with the product that is Super, the organisation around it which does not treat the competition as it's main goal, the lop-sided playing field between Australia and NZ, the incomprehensible decision making around scheduling and the complete lack of domestic drive - until we reach a non-performing embarrassing Wallabies.

A focus on changing key elements of rugby, such as the scrum, the maul, and kicking out of hand - that is a misdirection imo.

 

[Yoda]

Thanks for your comments but the crowds are dwindling and it’s not a great spectacle imho. I watch it because I’m a die hard… but it could be so much better. You always watch a rugby game with so much hope of the possibility of a great game. Rarely are you rewarded. If you call watching ridiculous scrum penalties that are a lottery because it depends which referee you have or what he decides to interpret on that day decide a game entertaining, you have rocks in your head.

 

[Slim 293]

Thanks for your comments but the crowds are dwindling and it’s not a great spectacle imho. I watch it because I’m a die hard… but it could be so much better. You always watch a rugby game with so much hope of the possibility of a great game. Rarely are you rewarded. If you call watching ridiculous scrum penalties that are a lottery because it depends which referee you have or what he decides to interpret on that day decide a game entertaining, you have rocks in your head.

I've watched many, many entertaining games of rugby in recent years... Scotland v England on the weekend was a cracker.

Again, it sounds like a problem with the quality of Australian rugby.

 

[Strewthcobber]

People focus on the wrong metric. It's not ball-in-play time that's the problem, it's the eternity in between that's the issue - the ball-out-of-play time. This is what sucks all the energy out of a stadium and it's when people change channel.

We all know the issue - When a knock on happened at the other end of the field, and then two scrums are reset, before a random penalty and yellow card, and then another scrum is called, and then the ball is kicked out for a lineout huddle and a drinks break. And because you're 110m away, you can't see any of it.

 

[Pone's Mullet]

Have a look at the French crowds and tell me it's a ball in play problem - it's an fan experience problem, too few matches, too few wins.

 

[PhilClinton]

Have a look at the French crowds and tell me it's a ball in play problem - it's an fan experience problem, too few matches, too few wins.

Comparing crowds in other markets is always difficult - as mentioned in the article.

France doesn't exactly have another two competitions vying for the same eyes like we do.

 

[dru]

Comparing crowds in other markets is always difficult - as mentioned in the article.

France doesn't exactly have another two competitions vying for the same eyes like we do.

I suspect you may be underestimating the dominance of Football in European markets.

 

[Dan54]

Have a look at the French crowds and tell me it's a ball in play problem - it's an fan experience problem, too few matches, too few wins.

I think the same can be said for England etc too. And @PhilClinton they have huge comp from another sport that dwarfs rugby.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

I think it is worth while keeping mind of not just ball in play time but what constitutes ball in play. to this end the new offside rule re kicking is great. that endless back and forth is uninteresting even for a big fan like me.
i look at the nfl as a great example and the ball in play is like 12 minutes in a 48 minute game - but when it is in play it is basically all action and the gap between plays has generally gotten shorter so the game is pretty action packed. some will come up with the faults of the game but its the most watched contact sport in the world.

re football in europe - no one is doubting its dominance BUT its not a contact sport. i think most markets have a fanbase for games like basketball and soccer and there is often overlap with football and rugby fans etc, but there is definitely a fan base for just contact sports.
now look at Australia with three highly competitive contact sports in a relatively small market.

I think people might be too quick to cast aside Australia as an outlier - maybe it's a good example of what happens to this product in a hyper competitive market.
what happens to the RFU when the NFL puts a team in London?
NHL is pretty much just action and the puck is always in play with very simple rules that govern stoppages - i dont see rugby stealing eyeballs in eastern europe, scandinavia and russia anytime soon (or canada for that matter).

i would argue the sport is going backwards in canada and the USA in part due to bad governance but also do to competition from a number of sports.

ireland is the only example of it thriving in a competitive sports environment with competition from contact sports - to rugby's
benefit - it's competition is non-professional and i would argue has to be poorly governed and run

maybe aus is a good lesson. I think the game is exciting a lot of the time but i do agree that Aus results and brand have not been great (hard in a competitive market!) so that affects things.

winning and good play helps. rugby in scotland was nearly on its knees not long ago an they have turned it around with positive rugby and good results (at least on the field).

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

super rugby mismanagement definitely an issue with crowds for sure though. but the crowds aren't huge in the premier league or the celtic league.

france crowds can be huge but these are also small markets with nothing else going on.

i've been to montpellier etc and that's what the town does on saturday.

 

[Pone's Mullet]

Comparing crowds in other markets is always difficult - as mentioned in the article.

France doesn't exactly have another two competitions vying for the same eyes like we do.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Again, this sounds more like an Australian rugby problem, and not a rugby problem.

Ball in play has icreased.

And the game is certainly not a worse spectacle than what it's been in the past.

2009 is one example when teams didn't want to hold the ball.

And I'd argue it has less to do with the game itself and the fact that it has been appallingly managed here over decades.

 

[PhilClinton]

View attachment 18295

Fake news

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

View attachment 18295

This is a poor comparison. Tennis and cycling are more event based sports not league sports. Same as athletics. Not sure if this is in terms of watching or participating?
The same graph probably says soccer is the most popular in aus but behold the a league

 

[Pfitzy]

We need the game to be sustainable.
That means more money.
But more money has, in essence, mate the same less sustainable.
Do we fix that with more money?

 

[Derpus]

We need the game to be sustainable.
That means more money.
But more money has, in essence, mate the same less sustainable.
Do we fix that with more money?

Seems a bit of an oversimplification. Obtaining more money by committing to something that will reduce the appeal of the product in the long-term and then spunking that money on stupid shit like league wingers (still doing that one ffs) is one of the major contributing factors to the games plight (fuck you fox).

But that doesn't mean investment in the game will automatically go wrong or that we must do unsustainable shit like start a team in Melbourne or spunk absolute fuckloads of cash on league fucking wingers.

 

[Marce]

According NZ Herald, Jaguares could be back to replace Rebels:

Former contender emerges as potential Rebels replacement

As the Melbourne Rebels stand on the verge of folding, their replacements have emerged.

www.nzherald.co.nz

For me is a good news but TBH is not the best option for the competition. You removed Jaguares and South African teams in order to increase the engament in Oceania with better time zones and short distances so if you get a team from 12,000 kilometers is not make senses after all. If you want to compete against other footy codes in Oceania is not good

 

[Dan54]

According NZ Herald, Jaguares could be back to replace Rebels:

Former contender emerges as potential Rebels replacement

As the Melbourne Rebels stand on the verge of folding, their replacements have emerged.

www.nzherald.co.nz

For me is a good news but TBH is not the best option for the competition. You removed Jaguares and South African teams in order to increase the engament in Oceania with better time zones and short distances so if you get a team from 12,000 kilometers is not make senses after all. If you want to compete against other footy codes in Oceania is not good

Though if I remeber the timezones with Argentina weren't all that bad? A 7pm kick off in Argentina is usually about 10-11 am NZ and 7ish on Aus eastern coast, next day. Kind of relates well, probably suits Aus well, breakfast rugby is great! Though to be honest I prefer we don't read about replacements for Rebels just yet (thinking positive). Almost like arguing over the carcass bafore the horse has died to me.