• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Waratahs 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.

John S

Chilla Wilson (44)
I have a question for the faithful few. If I gave you a list of the 2017 squad (Less the proven performers and those I consider a sideshow) who would you say has taken their chance and run with it? Which players are pushing those around them and challenging for higher honours?


Gordon, Simone, Mason are my obvious picks. I liked Holloway's form last year before he was injured, I haven't seen that form come back yet, so he's a maybe depending on up-coming games.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Actually, I'll add Horwitz to my list.

I think Simone has gone backwards based on expectations from the NRC last year. He hasn't really been able to assert himself in the side and Horwitz has managed to push him out of the starting XV.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
I think he's been OK off the bench. Actually think it's his best spot. Brings a nice spark.

I agree. His form of late off the bench has been OK. I know rotation is the new black, but with the team performing like a 1984 Trabant, I'd have the best 9 starting thanks. Gordon, that is. No problem with Phipps on the bench, as a replacement I can't see much between Lucas and him. They both have their problems of various sorts.
 

namtrak

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Gordon, Simone, Mason are my obvious picks. I liked Holloway's form last year before he was injured, I haven't seen that form come back yet, so he's a maybe depending on up-coming games.

Yeh there's not many to choose from. Maybe it's just fanciful thinking but I want players coming into the squad to be bitter, twisted, focussed, bat shit crazy, driven madmen. Players that have their eyes on higher prizes, players that I want to watch. The most recent Australian player like that for me, is probably Sean McMahon. The bitterness cupboard is so bare. It's like they are spoilt or something
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I have a question for the faithful few. If I gave you a list of the 2017 squad (Less the proven performers and those I consider a sideshow) who would you say has taken their chance and run with it? Which players are pushing those around them and challenging for higher honours? Think any number of Kiwi bolters.

Sam Needs
Tom Robertson*
Matt Sandell
Damien Fitzpatrick
Tolu Latu*
Hugh Roach
Ned Hanigan
Ryan McCauley
Senio Toleafoa
Jack Dempsey
Jed Holloway
Michael Wells
Brad Wilkin
Jake Gordon
Matt Lucas
Andrew Deegan
Bryce Hegarty
Mack Mason
Irae Simone
Cameron Clark
Harry Jones
Andrew Kellaway

Latu? Maybe Hanigan, Wells?


Hmm, unfortunately some of those proven performers that aren't on that list aren't performing - but they stop.
Some of the names above haven't really had the chance to prove themselves over 80 minutes.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
The trend is the same at the Reds, and these crowd figures for the Tahs are scary bad (in terms of both the Tahs financial and commercial situation and in terms of fan adherence levels):

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...e-crowd-in-clubs-history-20170426-gvsnz4.html

Once we've culled a Super team, everything will improve though, won't it.

A serious note too btw: the admission in this article that some historical low Tahs' crowd figures have been highly overstated and were now, later, subject to significant downwards revision.

I have long suspected this to be true for Reds' crowds at Suncorp when I was sure the crowd was, say, less than 15,000 and worse, but the reported figure from the media and QRU was a crazily overstated 20,000 or so.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The trend is the same at the Reds, and these crowd figures for the Tahs are scary bad (in terms of both the Tahs financial and commercial situation in terms of fan adherence levels):


Whilst the downward trend is certainly bad, there are a couple of things that need to be considered in terms of how much it affects things commercially.

Stadium members at the SFS don't really benefit the Waratahs financially to my knowledge. Maybe they add value when you're signing a new stadium deal as to what incentives are offered for playing at the location.

The other are Waratahs members. Of course you need them to sign up against next year but if they've paid their membership for the year, you have their money for the year regardless of whether they turn up to the game or not.

In my group of 7 members, we've had between 3 and 5 of us there for each home game. It's certainly the lowest attendance we've ever had and partly due to 4 of us having children under 1 but has also been impacted substantially by the on field performance. I am fairly certain all 7 of us will sign up again next year.

Clearly it is easier to sell sponsorship with higher crowd numbers though so even though a person who has paid for a ticket and doesn't show doesn't cause you to lose money in that situation, them not being there impacts your ability to generate revenue elsewhere.
 

blues recovery

Billy Sheehan (19)
From my experience the difference for these teams to be profitable or at least not totally in the shit is the value generated by the walk up crowd . That and any potential revenue you can generate from hosting a home final are really the only variables you are playing with financially once the season kicks off .
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
From my experience the difference for these teams to be profitable or at least not totally in the shit is the value generated by the walk up crowd . That and any potential revenue you can generate from hosting a home final are really the only variables you are playing with financially once the season kicks off .

Good points br.

Noting as well that crowd levels over the season and ditto viewership numbers on Foxtel are leading indicators positively or negatively for down-the-line Super team sponsorship (a) interest as a whole in even bidding for a sponsorship and (b) sponsorship $ offer levels as sponsors generally justify their investments on eyeball counts to their brand on jersey display or elsewhere.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
The mystery of the Tahs declared 'crowd numbers' is helpfully being unravelled by Payto and Pando tonight, and I post the telling extract below from their News Corp article (my added emphasis). (Let me say at the top: I strongly suspect the identical 'unfortunate difficulty' in the QRU's similar issues in getting to the right Reds' crowd numbers is likely identical to that conveyed re the Tahs below.)

Obviously it's a pure coincdience that these 'calculation problems' occurred when both the Tahs and Reds were both experiencing downwards crowd trends.

A mere statistical aberration too that the applicable RUs' crowds estimates turned out to be materially higher than they really were later discovered to be in a number of cases (one such is quoted below when the negative deviance was 24%, just a trifle really).

It just happened in this funny old way that all these difficulties occurred and in the Tahs' case the problems were so significant that for a time they even stopped attempting to post any crowd numbers at all. It was a very complex problem to solve clearly, the challenge of excluding catering staff and such like.

"TAHS PLAY NUMBERS GAME
THERE were some raised eyebrows this week when the Waratahs claimed that last week’s crowd of 10,555 was not their lowest in history, but that it was in fact in 2012 against the Hurricanes.
The official crowd from that match was listed as 13,372 but Tahs officials say Ticketek numbers for the game say it was 10,196.
We tracked down the Waratahs chief executive at the time, Jason Allen - who now works in England - to find if they’d been fudging numbers on his watch.
“For a long time, years and years before I arrived, we’d counted numbers for locked in members, those who had commitment as stadium members, and we had problems for a long time with actual crowd numbers so that’s why we stopped publishing them,” Allen told us.
While members who may not have attended were counted then, there are still major issues with the way they’re done now, with catering staff and security among those who are potentially tallied as spectators.
Whatever way it’s done, it’s fair to assume that the crowd figures you see from clubs are not an accurate reflection of the number of people who have purchased tickets to watch games."
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
The mystery of the Tahs declared 'crowd numbers' is helpfully being unravelled by Payto and Pando tonight
“For a long time, years and years before I arrived, we’d counted numbers for locked in members, those who had commitment as stadium members, and we had problems for a long time with actual crowd numbers so that’s why we stopped publishing them,” Allen told us.
While members who may not have attended were counted then, there are still major issues with the way they’re done now, with catering staff and security among those who are potentially tallied as spectators.
Whatever way it’s done, it’s fair to assume that the crowd figures you see from clubs are not an accurate reflection of the number of people who have purchased tickets to watch games."
I call bullwhip on that.
Are we seriously being told that no one can take the turnstile turnover and subtract staff rostered for the day to get the spectator number?
Even the unpaid work experience intern could do that.
AND his/her primary school aged younger brother could be given a coke and hot dog to sit and count the spectators as the game unfolds.

It sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation to cover up real facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top