Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Stats Don't Lie (Much)
The crowd averages for the Super Rugby season thus far...
New Zealand: 12,732 (down 12%)
Australia: 19,312 (down 3%)
South Africa: 32,175 (up 24%)
So South Africa, who isn't hosting the RWC and has a bunch of teams who are mainly either shit, or underperforming are attracting crowds that NZ couldn't even wild sex wet dream about.
A few notes on the figures. The NZ figure doesn't include the Crusaders crowd from London for obvious reasons. Factors that have also influenced NZ crowds are clearly the Crusaders being unable to play at AMI Stadium (did AMI insure the stadium?). This would have been offset to some extent by Eden Park now being fully open whereas last year half of it was a construction site.
I have the crowd numbers for 61 out of 65 games so they pretty accurate. I am missing the crowds for two of the three Cheetahs games. Namely the last two which were their smallest, the Lions are missing two of their five as well, and they too will be too embarrassed to tell anybody how pathetically small their support now is. It was a ghost town in their ground last time out. And the Chiefs are missing the crowd for the Blues game which I saw on TV had sweet fuck all at it which is odd since it's supposed to be a derby game.
Stats (brackets is the total number up or down to date)
Stormers: 36447 (-5935)
Bulls: 35211 (+920)
Sharks: 30840 (+5173)
Lions: 28521 (+17382) *more like 20,000.
Reds: 26734 (+3907)
Waratahs: 23472 (-733)
Cheetahs: 23012 (+8671) * missing smaller crowds, probably 18,000.
Blues: 18321 (+504)
Rebels: 18086
Crusaders: 15419 (-6217) *includes London crowd
Force: 15405 (-1615)
Brumbies: 14524 (-733)
Hurricanes: 11494 (-3461)
Highlanders: 10847 (+5004)
Chiefs: 10,142 (-1486)
The obvious questions are why do the South African crowds grow significantly when they already have the biggest crowds? and why do our crowds continue to suck dogs balls?
Yes there is a financial 'crisis' but that is a global one and it has had little effect on Aussie and SA. Also the NRL crowds are as high as ever so far this year and in the past two years. The AFL average attendance last year was the highest ever.
That is a bullshit excuse, and I have heard people use it. The fact is people have lost interest plain and simple. The roots lie in the rest and rotation of the ABs in 2008. In 2007 the average crowd in NZ was 20172. In 2008 it was 15805. In the world of professional sport that is a COLLOSAL drop. It means 1 out of every 4 people thought "fuck this" and stopped going. And they've never gone since.
Other factors I think in the continued stagnation/drop are the number of people who now have Sky, especially MY Sky, who will now question why they would pay $85 a month to watch sport on TV and then go and blow anything from $40 to $100 plus if you have a family on getting ripped by parking, tickets, and food for ONE game that you could be watching from the comfort of home. Also if people are struggling to make ends meet then how come Sky subscriptions are going up, not being cancelled?
The ticket prices in South Africa are tiny compared to here. Yes it is a poorer country, and yes it is more heavily populated, but not by the white folk who go to the games. Tickets there are in the range of $5 for a crappy seat (in modern stadiums) to about $20 for the best seats in the house. People don't go the Cheetahs or Lions games (aside from season openers) because they are shithouse, but by god do they go to Stormers, Bulls and Sharks games. Despite the fact that they lie 3rd, 6th and 8th on the ladder.
In case the NZRU hasn't noticed, NZers a) aren't really fucking wealthy and b) spend their money on a shit load of other things these days.
You are in competition for their $$$'s which means that you either put on a better show (which you don't) or else you lower the prices (which you don't). Fortunately for them the Highlanders are going well this year which has meant that their is noticeably more support down south, but it's hard to see that squad carrying that on for much beyond this year.
The other concerning fact is that NZ has the strongest performing teams in the competition and yet it still doesn't translate into improved attendances overall.
NZ teams: 25 wins, 3 draws, 17 losses (147 comp points)
Aussie teams: 21 wins, 1 draw, 22 losses (127 comp points)
SA teams: 19 wins, 26 losses --- (118 comp points)
If the ABs crap out in this years WC and we get that stream of our Super Rugby players continuing overseas, and the NZ teams drop down in performance to the Aussie and SA sides then god help us in 2012 and beyond.
So no pressure aye?
New Zealand: 12,732 (down 12%)
Australia: 19,312 (down 3%)
South Africa: 32,175 (up 24%)
So South Africa, who isn't hosting the RWC and has a bunch of teams who are mainly either shit, or underperforming are attracting crowds that NZ couldn't even wild sex wet dream about.
A few notes on the figures. The NZ figure doesn't include the Crusaders crowd from London for obvious reasons. Factors that have also influenced NZ crowds are clearly the Crusaders being unable to play at AMI Stadium (did AMI insure the stadium?). This would have been offset to some extent by Eden Park now being fully open whereas last year half of it was a construction site.
I have the crowd numbers for 61 out of 65 games so they pretty accurate. I am missing the crowds for two of the three Cheetahs games. Namely the last two which were their smallest, the Lions are missing two of their five as well, and they too will be too embarrassed to tell anybody how pathetically small their support now is. It was a ghost town in their ground last time out. And the Chiefs are missing the crowd for the Blues game which I saw on TV had sweet fuck all at it which is odd since it's supposed to be a derby game.
Stats (brackets is the total number up or down to date)
Stormers: 36447 (-5935)
Bulls: 35211 (+920)
Sharks: 30840 (+5173)
Lions: 28521 (+17382) *more like 20,000.
Reds: 26734 (+3907)
Waratahs: 23472 (-733)
Cheetahs: 23012 (+8671) * missing smaller crowds, probably 18,000.
Blues: 18321 (+504)
Rebels: 18086
Crusaders: 15419 (-6217) *includes London crowd
Force: 15405 (-1615)
Brumbies: 14524 (-733)
Hurricanes: 11494 (-3461)
Highlanders: 10847 (+5004)
Chiefs: 10,142 (-1486)
The obvious questions are why do the South African crowds grow significantly when they already have the biggest crowds? and why do our crowds continue to suck dogs balls?
Yes there is a financial 'crisis' but that is a global one and it has had little effect on Aussie and SA. Also the NRL crowds are as high as ever so far this year and in the past two years. The AFL average attendance last year was the highest ever.
That is a bullshit excuse, and I have heard people use it. The fact is people have lost interest plain and simple. The roots lie in the rest and rotation of the ABs in 2008. In 2007 the average crowd in NZ was 20172. In 2008 it was 15805. In the world of professional sport that is a COLLOSAL drop. It means 1 out of every 4 people thought "fuck this" and stopped going. And they've never gone since.
Other factors I think in the continued stagnation/drop are the number of people who now have Sky, especially MY Sky, who will now question why they would pay $85 a month to watch sport on TV and then go and blow anything from $40 to $100 plus if you have a family on getting ripped by parking, tickets, and food for ONE game that you could be watching from the comfort of home. Also if people are struggling to make ends meet then how come Sky subscriptions are going up, not being cancelled?
The ticket prices in South Africa are tiny compared to here. Yes it is a poorer country, and yes it is more heavily populated, but not by the white folk who go to the games. Tickets there are in the range of $5 for a crappy seat (in modern stadiums) to about $20 for the best seats in the house. People don't go the Cheetahs or Lions games (aside from season openers) because they are shithouse, but by god do they go to Stormers, Bulls and Sharks games. Despite the fact that they lie 3rd, 6th and 8th on the ladder.
In case the NZRU hasn't noticed, NZers a) aren't really fucking wealthy and b) spend their money on a shit load of other things these days.
You are in competition for their $$$'s which means that you either put on a better show (which you don't) or else you lower the prices (which you don't). Fortunately for them the Highlanders are going well this year which has meant that their is noticeably more support down south, but it's hard to see that squad carrying that on for much beyond this year.
The other concerning fact is that NZ has the strongest performing teams in the competition and yet it still doesn't translate into improved attendances overall.
NZ teams: 25 wins, 3 draws, 17 losses (147 comp points)
Aussie teams: 21 wins, 1 draw, 22 losses (127 comp points)
SA teams: 19 wins, 26 losses --- (118 comp points)
If the ABs crap out in this years WC and we get that stream of our Super Rugby players continuing overseas, and the NZ teams drop down in performance to the Aussie and SA sides then god help us in 2012 and beyond.
So no pressure aye?
Labels: all blacks, crowds, rugby, rugby world cup, super rugby
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The ELVs
Last year in the Tri nations under the ELVs there were 43 tries scored. This year under the 'old' ruck rules there were 27 tries scored.
Last year there were 33 penalty goals kicked. This year there were 69 penalty goals kicked (from 86 attempts). I timed some of the penalty attempts in an ANZC match in the weekend and the successful penalties typically took 100-110 seconds from when it was awarded until when the ball was kicked off from halfway. Unsuccessful penalties it was around 80 seconds from the penalty being awarded until the 22m restart. It means that roughly 140 minutes was spent waiting for play to restart after a side elected to kick for goal. That's 19% of the playing time gone just for penalty attempts alone. There were also 19 drop goal attempts in the mix. And then there's scrums which this year were shit as well. Having done some stats on a couple of NPC games you can expect roughly 20% of any given match to be spent waiting for a scrum to deliver the ball into play as though it were a stork delivering a 24 carat baby.
Last year SA would have been awarded free kicks inside their own half and put up, 'up and unders' or tapped and taken a ruck. This year they banged over penalties from inside their own half and won test matches.
I don't know about other people but nothing fucks me off more than a side getting a 50/50 ruck penalty miles away from the try line and profiting by 3 points from it. It has long been a criticism of rugby that it is a game ruled by the whistle and the boot and that was the reason the ELVs were brought into place. There were complaints made that they meant there was more kicking under them which I find hilarious. The South Africans have shown exactly how to play under the old rules. Kick long, kick far and most important of all kick the living shit out of it. The ABs have got into trouble through trying to run the ball out of their own half or stupid chip kicks (which should rightly be a risky strategy). The game as it is now (and always has been) is all about field position. But with professionalism has come professional goal kickers who can kick more accurately over greater distances than previous generations of kickers. SOme of these older kickers could kick them from big distances but they weren't nailing 80, 90+ % of their kicks.
Of the 402 points scored in this years Tri-Nations 44% have come about through tries (includes the try and the conversions) while 56% have come through penalties and a handful of drop goals. Last year there were 386 points scored with 71% scored as a result of tries and 29% as a result of penalties. The difference is phenomenal and purely down to reverting back to the old breakdown rules.
That fairly clearly says that you are more likely now to amass more points and therefore win more games by what sort of field position you can get into and how often you can get the opposition pinged for (usually) breakdown infringements. That is of course something of a skill in itself, sometimes. Most of the time however sides get called for a guess scrum penalty or either team could have been penalised 4 times each at a ruck but in the end the ref rolled the dice and picked whoever he happened to be looking at last.
To me it is just plain wrong that sides can gain a large amount of their points when never realistically threatening the opposition try line.
I have a few ideas as to how they can make the punishment at least fit the crime a little more snugly.
Seeing as how they are unlikely to go back to free kicks for the more minor infringements here's a few...
1) In rugby if you get a penalty but decide to kick for touch and you miss kick the ball and it goes dead it comes all the way back for a scrum. Although I would go further and give the defending team a free kick with scrums banned as an option because they slow things down too much. The same should apply to penalty goal attempts that miss. Forget a 22 drop out. Copy the NFL. The defending team gets to take over possession where you took the missed kick from. An example would be the 60m kick by Steyn in the Hamilton test. Imagine the extra pressure if he misses. NZ gets a free kick 40 metres out from the SA try line.
That to me would encourage teams who have been awarded a penalty 40-60 metres out to kick for an attacking lineout. If they want to shoot for goal they can but they run a risk for chosing to do so. As they get closer to the posts the risk goes down and also they were more deserving of gaining the three points as they were in better field position and were perhaps more likely to score in the first place.
2) A bit more radical but I would make tries worth 6 points and the conversion worth one. That would at least mean an unconverted try is worth the same as two penalties or drop goals. The NFL have got this scoring system worked out properly.
3) A third even more radical option would be to ban all penalty attempts for goal from outside a certain distance (say 40m) or to make penalties worth different amounts. Three points inside 30 metres, two points from there to halfway and just one point beyond that.
The last idea is basically bat shit but I think the first two have legs and may well come in at some point. The first especially as it seems a contradiction that a penalty where the team has kicked for a lineout and its gone dead should come all the way back but the same rule doesn't apply for a shot at goal. The punishment is harsher for a team trying to score a try than one trying to kick a goal.
Last year there were 33 penalty goals kicked. This year there were 69 penalty goals kicked (from 86 attempts). I timed some of the penalty attempts in an ANZC match in the weekend and the successful penalties typically took 100-110 seconds from when it was awarded until when the ball was kicked off from halfway. Unsuccessful penalties it was around 80 seconds from the penalty being awarded until the 22m restart. It means that roughly 140 minutes was spent waiting for play to restart after a side elected to kick for goal. That's 19% of the playing time gone just for penalty attempts alone. There were also 19 drop goal attempts in the mix. And then there's scrums which this year were shit as well. Having done some stats on a couple of NPC games you can expect roughly 20% of any given match to be spent waiting for a scrum to deliver the ball into play as though it were a stork delivering a 24 carat baby.
Last year SA would have been awarded free kicks inside their own half and put up, 'up and unders' or tapped and taken a ruck. This year they banged over penalties from inside their own half and won test matches.
I don't know about other people but nothing fucks me off more than a side getting a 50/50 ruck penalty miles away from the try line and profiting by 3 points from it. It has long been a criticism of rugby that it is a game ruled by the whistle and the boot and that was the reason the ELVs were brought into place. There were complaints made that they meant there was more kicking under them which I find hilarious. The South Africans have shown exactly how to play under the old rules. Kick long, kick far and most important of all kick the living shit out of it. The ABs have got into trouble through trying to run the ball out of their own half or stupid chip kicks (which should rightly be a risky strategy). The game as it is now (and always has been) is all about field position. But with professionalism has come professional goal kickers who can kick more accurately over greater distances than previous generations of kickers. SOme of these older kickers could kick them from big distances but they weren't nailing 80, 90+ % of their kicks.
Of the 402 points scored in this years Tri-Nations 44% have come about through tries (includes the try and the conversions) while 56% have come through penalties and a handful of drop goals. Last year there were 386 points scored with 71% scored as a result of tries and 29% as a result of penalties. The difference is phenomenal and purely down to reverting back to the old breakdown rules.
That fairly clearly says that you are more likely now to amass more points and therefore win more games by what sort of field position you can get into and how often you can get the opposition pinged for (usually) breakdown infringements. That is of course something of a skill in itself, sometimes. Most of the time however sides get called for a guess scrum penalty or either team could have been penalised 4 times each at a ruck but in the end the ref rolled the dice and picked whoever he happened to be looking at last.
To me it is just plain wrong that sides can gain a large amount of their points when never realistically threatening the opposition try line.
I have a few ideas as to how they can make the punishment at least fit the crime a little more snugly.
Seeing as how they are unlikely to go back to free kicks for the more minor infringements here's a few...
1) In rugby if you get a penalty but decide to kick for touch and you miss kick the ball and it goes dead it comes all the way back for a scrum. Although I would go further and give the defending team a free kick with scrums banned as an option because they slow things down too much. The same should apply to penalty goal attempts that miss. Forget a 22 drop out. Copy the NFL. The defending team gets to take over possession where you took the missed kick from. An example would be the 60m kick by Steyn in the Hamilton test. Imagine the extra pressure if he misses. NZ gets a free kick 40 metres out from the SA try line.
That to me would encourage teams who have been awarded a penalty 40-60 metres out to kick for an attacking lineout. If they want to shoot for goal they can but they run a risk for chosing to do so. As they get closer to the posts the risk goes down and also they were more deserving of gaining the three points as they were in better field position and were perhaps more likely to score in the first place.
2) A bit more radical but I would make tries worth 6 points and the conversion worth one. That would at least mean an unconverted try is worth the same as two penalties or drop goals. The NFL have got this scoring system worked out properly.
3) A third even more radical option would be to ban all penalty attempts for goal from outside a certain distance (say 40m) or to make penalties worth different amounts. Three points inside 30 metres, two points from there to halfway and just one point beyond that.
The last idea is basically bat shit but I think the first two have legs and may well come in at some point. The first especially as it seems a contradiction that a penalty where the team has kicked for a lineout and its gone dead should come all the way back but the same rule doesn't apply for a shot at goal. The punishment is harsher for a team trying to score a try than one trying to kick a goal.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The What's So Super 15
News this week that the Super 14 is going to be completely overhauled and become the Super 15. OK, so maybe not really overhauled at all.
Apparently they are adding a team from Aussie and will move to a conference format where teams from each country play each other home and away while playing the teams from the other two countries once (5 home and 5 away). Bearing in mind we are still being kept in the dark here (this is standard practice by the NZRU who are about as open as the KGB) all that follows may be completely irrelevent, though in saying that there appears to be not much else they could do.
The up side to a conference system is more local derbies. In fact it would mean that 72% of all matches that a side plays will be in their home country compared to the current 62-70% (depends on number of home and away games). That will help TV ratings slightly as the games in SA are at times where nobody bothers to watch them and the same applies to games in OZ and NZ for them.
In terms of crowd numbers this year they look pretty awful. In NZ of the 33 matches I have figures for 29 of them though in a couple of cases they could be a bit off as the figures given were rounded off. The average has been 13,875 which is pretty horrific. Factoring the four crowds I don't have figures for (2 x Blues and 1 each for Crusaders and Highlanders) the average is probably in the low to mid 14,000s. Last year the average was 15,602. Compare that to 2002 when it was 22,862.
There are a few influences to look at here. The first is the recession. I think we have all realised that its not having much of an effect, perhaps it could be measured in the low hundreds. The NRL is averaging 17070 per match compared to 17260 after the same number of rounds as last year while the Warriors crowds are up.
The second thing that may be an influence is the start date of the Super 14. It is obviously too early for many to stomach with the theory that the crowds would pick up as the season went on. It's hard to measure precisely week to week because the number of games played in NZ is so variable. Most weeks there are 2 or 3 matches in NZ but in week 4 there were 4 while in weeks 2 and 12 there was only 1. That's another problem with this comp. Even when it's in the middle of the rugby season there are occasions when there is just one or two professional matches on NZ soil. It's a lot easier to hype something or follow it when there's actually something to go and watch.
Looking at the average from rounds 1 to 4 in NZ the crowd average was 11,181, rounds 5 to 9 it was 13,370 and from rounds 10-14 it was 19,458 (probably more like 18,000 if the missing crowd figures came in). The recent pickup can in a big part be put down to the Chiefs form with the sellout v the Hurricanes.
In Aussie the corresponding averages were 19,345, then 20,892 followed by 17,574. That would be a major concern across the ditch. The Aussie teams had pretty awful seasons which will explain the drop off but with there already being concerns about an extra team further diluting an already shallow player pool how many people will want to go watch a lower quality game?
In South Africa the averages were 34,766 early on, 23,296 through the middle and 24,574 towards the end though there are so many matches without crowd figures released (9 matches including 4 for the Lions who had fairly empty stadiums towards the end) that they aren't exactly robust.
So we have 3 different answers to the same question there. In NZ crowds clearly picked up, in Aussie they were relatively similar throughout while in South Africa they appear to have dropped somewhat. And I guess that would back up what NZ want (later season starts) and South Africa want (same start times or earlier).
The compromise apparently will see the comp start the first weekend of March.
and the final possible influence on crowd figures in NZ is the fact that Auckland and Christchurch are missing large parts of their grounds, most notably the best seats in the house. You'd guess that each venue would have attracted more folks along had half the season ticket holders not been turfed to the otherside of the ground which in turn moves other people or makes others not want to go as they are shifted to worse positions. Factor in the atmosphere which is obviously going to suffer and both sides could have seen crowds of 3 or 4 thousand more. Once the venues are complete they should be more attractive places to watch sport from and add to that Dunedin getting an enclosed stadium and things look fairly good for the rugby going public in NZ in those locations.
What was interesting to see though was the respective ticket prices in the 3 countries. Talk about economies of scale. In South Africa you can go watch a Super 14 for the same price that you'd buy a weekend newspaper in NZ ($1.89 for a Bulls ticket with the Sharks costing an absurdly expensive $8.51). The best seat in the house to the table topping Bulls game comes in at $20.80NZ. Whereas in Aussie the cheapest tickets will set you back the price of a couple dozen NZ beer or a couple of bottles of (cheapish) wine. For the Waratahs it's $24.87 for a cheap seat to watch a no frills side while a far corner nose bleeder for the Brumbies or Force will set you back a shocking $37.30 and if you want to sit with the rugby snobbery you're looking at an outrageous $80.88 for the Reds or Force.
In NZ the Blues could let you in for $12 if you took along a kid (preferably you're own and legally) while the cheapies elsewhere came in at $15 for the Chiefs, $20 for the Highlanders and Crusaders and $23 for the Hurricanes. The most expensive tickets would set you back $35 to $53.
I wonder what the crowds would be like if we adopted a SA approach and took 50-75% off our ticket prices. Surely they could look at doing something like that given much of their revenue comes from TV deals and marketing. And if grounds are getting soldout regularly you actually make people want to be part of it and either go along or make sure you are somewhere to watch it on the tellie?
-------------------------------------
Anyways, forgetting the crowds and looking back at the possible new format I've got a major concern with the playoff system. Obviously with 15 teams you need more sides in the playoffs to keep interest up. And from the sounds of it they are going to a 6 team playoff system. I'm assuming they will have separate points tables for each conference and the top 2 go through from each. This opens a massive can of worms. If you have 3 games in week 1 who plays who? You will have 3 top sides. If you take the two teams with the best record thats hardly fair given they wont have played the same teams the same number of times. The top Aussie side will always be at an advantage because they will be playing weaker opponents like the BOP Magic do in the trans tasman netball comp.
Having 3 separate pools may also means teams that are more like the 7th or 8th best teams in the comp go into the playoffs at the expense of others.
Whatever they come up with it will be flawed and cause much teeth nashing at the end of each season with situations worse than the current one where the Crusaders 8-1-4 beat the Waratahs 9-4 into the playoffs. Apparently bonus points are more important than winning.
Apparently they are adding a team from Aussie and will move to a conference format where teams from each country play each other home and away while playing the teams from the other two countries once (5 home and 5 away). Bearing in mind we are still being kept in the dark here (this is standard practice by the NZRU who are about as open as the KGB) all that follows may be completely irrelevent, though in saying that there appears to be not much else they could do.
The up side to a conference system is more local derbies. In fact it would mean that 72% of all matches that a side plays will be in their home country compared to the current 62-70% (depends on number of home and away games). That will help TV ratings slightly as the games in SA are at times where nobody bothers to watch them and the same applies to games in OZ and NZ for them.
In terms of crowd numbers this year they look pretty awful. In NZ of the 33 matches I have figures for 29 of them though in a couple of cases they could be a bit off as the figures given were rounded off. The average has been 13,875 which is pretty horrific. Factoring the four crowds I don't have figures for (2 x Blues and 1 each for Crusaders and Highlanders) the average is probably in the low to mid 14,000s. Last year the average was 15,602. Compare that to 2002 when it was 22,862.
There are a few influences to look at here. The first is the recession. I think we have all realised that its not having much of an effect, perhaps it could be measured in the low hundreds. The NRL is averaging 17070 per match compared to 17260 after the same number of rounds as last year while the Warriors crowds are up.
The second thing that may be an influence is the start date of the Super 14. It is obviously too early for many to stomach with the theory that the crowds would pick up as the season went on. It's hard to measure precisely week to week because the number of games played in NZ is so variable. Most weeks there are 2 or 3 matches in NZ but in week 4 there were 4 while in weeks 2 and 12 there was only 1. That's another problem with this comp. Even when it's in the middle of the rugby season there are occasions when there is just one or two professional matches on NZ soil. It's a lot easier to hype something or follow it when there's actually something to go and watch.
Looking at the average from rounds 1 to 4 in NZ the crowd average was 11,181, rounds 5 to 9 it was 13,370 and from rounds 10-14 it was 19,458 (probably more like 18,000 if the missing crowd figures came in). The recent pickup can in a big part be put down to the Chiefs form with the sellout v the Hurricanes.
In Aussie the corresponding averages were 19,345, then 20,892 followed by 17,574. That would be a major concern across the ditch. The Aussie teams had pretty awful seasons which will explain the drop off but with there already being concerns about an extra team further diluting an already shallow player pool how many people will want to go watch a lower quality game?
In South Africa the averages were 34,766 early on, 23,296 through the middle and 24,574 towards the end though there are so many matches without crowd figures released (9 matches including 4 for the Lions who had fairly empty stadiums towards the end) that they aren't exactly robust.
So we have 3 different answers to the same question there. In NZ crowds clearly picked up, in Aussie they were relatively similar throughout while in South Africa they appear to have dropped somewhat. And I guess that would back up what NZ want (later season starts) and South Africa want (same start times or earlier).
The compromise apparently will see the comp start the first weekend of March.
and the final possible influence on crowd figures in NZ is the fact that Auckland and Christchurch are missing large parts of their grounds, most notably the best seats in the house. You'd guess that each venue would have attracted more folks along had half the season ticket holders not been turfed to the otherside of the ground which in turn moves other people or makes others not want to go as they are shifted to worse positions. Factor in the atmosphere which is obviously going to suffer and both sides could have seen crowds of 3 or 4 thousand more. Once the venues are complete they should be more attractive places to watch sport from and add to that Dunedin getting an enclosed stadium and things look fairly good for the rugby going public in NZ in those locations.
What was interesting to see though was the respective ticket prices in the 3 countries. Talk about economies of scale. In South Africa you can go watch a Super 14 for the same price that you'd buy a weekend newspaper in NZ ($1.89 for a Bulls ticket with the Sharks costing an absurdly expensive $8.51). The best seat in the house to the table topping Bulls game comes in at $20.80NZ. Whereas in Aussie the cheapest tickets will set you back the price of a couple dozen NZ beer or a couple of bottles of (cheapish) wine. For the Waratahs it's $24.87 for a cheap seat to watch a no frills side while a far corner nose bleeder for the Brumbies or Force will set you back a shocking $37.30 and if you want to sit with the rugby snobbery you're looking at an outrageous $80.88 for the Reds or Force.
In NZ the Blues could let you in for $12 if you took along a kid (preferably you're own and legally) while the cheapies elsewhere came in at $15 for the Chiefs, $20 for the Highlanders and Crusaders and $23 for the Hurricanes. The most expensive tickets would set you back $35 to $53.
I wonder what the crowds would be like if we adopted a SA approach and took 50-75% off our ticket prices. Surely they could look at doing something like that given much of their revenue comes from TV deals and marketing. And if grounds are getting soldout regularly you actually make people want to be part of it and either go along or make sure you are somewhere to watch it on the tellie?
-------------------------------------
Anyways, forgetting the crowds and looking back at the possible new format I've got a major concern with the playoff system. Obviously with 15 teams you need more sides in the playoffs to keep interest up. And from the sounds of it they are going to a 6 team playoff system. I'm assuming they will have separate points tables for each conference and the top 2 go through from each. This opens a massive can of worms. If you have 3 games in week 1 who plays who? You will have 3 top sides. If you take the two teams with the best record thats hardly fair given they wont have played the same teams the same number of times. The top Aussie side will always be at an advantage because they will be playing weaker opponents like the BOP Magic do in the trans tasman netball comp.
Having 3 separate pools may also means teams that are more like the 7th or 8th best teams in the comp go into the playoffs at the expense of others.
Whatever they come up with it will be flawed and cause much teeth nashing at the end of each season with situations worse than the current one where the Crusaders 8-1-4 beat the Waratahs 9-4 into the playoffs. Apparently bonus points are more important than winning.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Romanian Rugby
Forget all these new rules and running rugby. The Romanians know how to keep rugby close to its true roots.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/videos/2332154
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/videos/2332154
Labels: rugby
Saturday, March 07, 2009
NZ Sevens team
I know that Sevens doesn't really matter for shit but for NZ it must be slightly embarrasing to be outclassed by a side like Wales and knocked out of the World Cup quarterfinals.
I mean we look absolutely hopeless.
We are a country that has a HUUUUUUGE touch scene in summer and is flowing now into sevens rugby before the rugby season kicks off proper (I'm excluding the Super 14 because quite frankly who gives a shit, it's still cricket season - albeit a wet one).
Surely we can produce very good sevens sides. The sides I have seen repping NZ recently are well organised but on the talent front they are utter shit.
And I mean utter shit.
Slow, cumbersome, average club footballer shit.
I don't know what sort of side Wales are putting together for this stuff but given that they are in the middle of a 6-Nations competition I'd doubt it's that flash. maybe they have called on a lot of professional players in the same way NZ would if we had test matches on and nothing else. I'm sure we could get together a 'name' side if we said all Super 14 players were available outside ABs but all the same.... we are utter shit.
On a brighter note, fuck rugby union. The real rugby is about to begin.
A competition which knows when to begin.
The NRL.
Look below for the bennyasena lowdown on where to put your money. He's a pro, and I'm a ho. Ho' for league fo' life!
I mean we look absolutely hopeless.
We are a country that has a HUUUUUUGE touch scene in summer and is flowing now into sevens rugby before the rugby season kicks off proper (I'm excluding the Super 14 because quite frankly who gives a shit, it's still cricket season - albeit a wet one).
Surely we can produce very good sevens sides. The sides I have seen repping NZ recently are well organised but on the talent front they are utter shit.
And I mean utter shit.
Slow, cumbersome, average club footballer shit.
I don't know what sort of side Wales are putting together for this stuff but given that they are in the middle of a 6-Nations competition I'd doubt it's that flash. maybe they have called on a lot of professional players in the same way NZ would if we had test matches on and nothing else. I'm sure we could get together a 'name' side if we said all Super 14 players were available outside ABs but all the same.... we are utter shit.
On a brighter note, fuck rugby union. The real rugby is about to begin.
A competition which knows when to begin.
The NRL.
Look below for the bennyasena lowdown on where to put your money. He's a pro, and I'm a ho. Ho' for league fo' life!
Labels: nrl, rugby, utter shit
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
SANZAR Talks
Chris Rattue has a few comments/suggestions in the herald on all this going on in Dubai.
My suspicion is that they will go with a 3 pool type system largely for these sorts of reasons:
What they should do in my opinion is add a 5th Aussie side (wherever they like and include a Pacific Island side in their competition as well giving them 6 teams. They are the weakest of the 3 playing nations and its never going to be because they have one less Super12/14 side, it's always going to be because more Aussies play league, AFL, football, cricket, swim with sharks etc. They are competitive at international level (yes, I know they have won 2 world cups) but they do not have the record of a South African or All Black side week in and week out because it's not a massive sport in OZ and NEVER will be.
That would mean adding an extra NZ side perhaps in the central North Island somewhere. It's a bit tricky because they could play at New Plymouth, Tauranga or Hawke's Bay so a decision would need to be made there about the venue likely to get the biggest support. The other option would be a Northern side based at North Harbour Stadium and maybe playing a game or two in Whangarei. Hard to know and a lot of population/crowd/economy/facility crunching etc would be needed.
You'd play each side home and away in your region giving 10 games then play perhaps 3 teams from each of the other zones (3 at home and 3 away). On the alternate year you would play the other 3 sides that you hadn't played the year before. That gives you 16 matches best spread over 17 weeks exactly like the NFL. Then have the top 2 from each plus best 2 3rd placed sides.
yes, I know, it gets a bit mickey mouse there but you have to have an even number of teams divided by 4 or else whatever you come up with won't work. Odd numbers don't work, giving teams a week off in round one doesn't work because who gets it off? The top 3 teams overall? Nope, because then how do you get a game for each of them the following week without having 3 matches and 3 winners leaving ummmm, 3 teams to fight it out in a match meant for two.
So for example assume NZ and SA provide 3 sides each and Aussie 2...
The top side in the comp (Blues) gets to play the worst of the 3rd placed sides (Stormers).
The 2nd zone winner (Bulls) plays the other 3rd placed side (Crusaders).
The 3rd of the zone winners (Waratahs) plays the next worst team (Hurricanes) and the best 2nd placed side (Sharks) gets the other match v a fellow 2nd placed side (Brumbies).
Then obviously the higher ranked winners get home advantage over the lower ranked winners.
Fairly straightforward.
What will be interesting is if Aussie push for not just a 5th side but also a 6th side. They will be mud if they do that. It's a shame rugby in NZ is stronger than OZ because it would actually be better if we in NZ included a Pacific Island side. It would suit us better with our population base.
But no doubt the proposal will be absolutely bizzarre, involve huge amounts of travel to far flung places and mean we see piss all of the local derbies we always loved.
With the season split into 'two' it would work beautifully if they had 5 zone games then went to the 6 matches home and away mid season after each teams supporters had seen their team 5 times either live or live on tellie (not stupid 5am matches). You go on a 3 match road trip spread over 4 weeks and come home to play your 3 matches at home v overseas teams before the return fixtures for the NZ sides. Or vice versa with 3 at home, 3 on the road and then your last 5 games leading into the playoff series.
My suspicion is that they will go with a 3 pool type system largely for these sorts of reasons:
The essential weaknesses can't be repaired under the current format.
For one, teams don't play at home often enough, robbing their fans of live action at a reasonable hour and limiting the revenue-gathering potential as well. It has taken four rounds for the Blues to appear at home this year, which has given the season a surreal and distant start for their supporters. Worse still, the South African Cheetahs won't play at home until April 4, in the eighth round of the competition. That alone says this is a competition screaming out for an overhaul.From a New Zealand point of view, the South African teams in
particular have struggled to forge clear identities, rendering a lot of the competition as deadwood. Whereas in the old days an Aucklander might have taken a reasonable interest in say a clash between Canterbury and Otago, New Zealanders don't give two hoots about a game between the Cheetahs and Reds, or the Force and the Brumbies.
What they should do in my opinion is add a 5th Aussie side (wherever they like and include a Pacific Island side in their competition as well giving them 6 teams. They are the weakest of the 3 playing nations and its never going to be because they have one less Super12/14 side, it's always going to be because more Aussies play league, AFL, football, cricket, swim with sharks etc. They are competitive at international level (yes, I know they have won 2 world cups) but they do not have the record of a South African or All Black side week in and week out because it's not a massive sport in OZ and NEVER will be.
That would mean adding an extra NZ side perhaps in the central North Island somewhere. It's a bit tricky because they could play at New Plymouth, Tauranga or Hawke's Bay so a decision would need to be made there about the venue likely to get the biggest support. The other option would be a Northern side based at North Harbour Stadium and maybe playing a game or two in Whangarei. Hard to know and a lot of population/crowd/economy/facility crunching etc would be needed.
You'd play each side home and away in your region giving 10 games then play perhaps 3 teams from each of the other zones (3 at home and 3 away). On the alternate year you would play the other 3 sides that you hadn't played the year before. That gives you 16 matches best spread over 17 weeks exactly like the NFL. Then have the top 2 from each plus best 2 3rd placed sides.
yes, I know, it gets a bit mickey mouse there but you have to have an even number of teams divided by 4 or else whatever you come up with won't work. Odd numbers don't work, giving teams a week off in round one doesn't work because who gets it off? The top 3 teams overall? Nope, because then how do you get a game for each of them the following week without having 3 matches and 3 winners leaving ummmm, 3 teams to fight it out in a match meant for two.
So for example assume NZ and SA provide 3 sides each and Aussie 2...
The top side in the comp (Blues) gets to play the worst of the 3rd placed sides (Stormers).
The 2nd zone winner (Bulls) plays the other 3rd placed side (Crusaders).
The 3rd of the zone winners (Waratahs) plays the next worst team (Hurricanes) and the best 2nd placed side (Sharks) gets the other match v a fellow 2nd placed side (Brumbies).
Then obviously the higher ranked winners get home advantage over the lower ranked winners.
Fairly straightforward.
What will be interesting is if Aussie push for not just a 5th side but also a 6th side. They will be mud if they do that. It's a shame rugby in NZ is stronger than OZ because it would actually be better if we in NZ included a Pacific Island side. It would suit us better with our population base.
But no doubt the proposal will be absolutely bizzarre, involve huge amounts of travel to far flung places and mean we see piss all of the local derbies we always loved.
With the season split into 'two' it would work beautifully if they had 5 zone games then went to the 6 matches home and away mid season after each teams supporters had seen their team 5 times either live or live on tellie (not stupid 5am matches). You go on a 3 match road trip spread over 4 weeks and come home to play your 3 matches at home v overseas teams before the return fixtures for the NZ sides. Or vice versa with 3 at home, 3 on the road and then your last 5 games leading into the playoff series.
Labels: expansion, nzru, pacific island rugby, rugby, sanzar, super 14
Monday, September 01, 2008
You, Sir, are an irresponsible cock
Richard Boock highlights the inadequacies of Brian Lochore's rabble-rousing speech in a manner approximately 37-times more eloquent than my own effort. In fairness, he is paid to write, whereas I just dabble in my spare time.
I offer up the following highlights from Boock's article (thanks to Yamis for the link):
Sir Brian's comments were a reminder that great rugby players don't necessarily make great social commentators. In fact, they were a reminder that great rugby players sometimes have nothing to offer at all, apart from reminiscing on how things happened in their day. In SBL's world, that included children being physically chastised by all and sundry, children being left in the car at night while the parents were boozing, and men ruling the roost.
... on using an unsupervised motor vehicle as an overnight creche ... [i]t's as if he sees nothing wrong with the practice.
... His speech to a reported 1000 fathers carried a whiff of physical intimidation throughout. Consequences, lines in the sand, putting the hard word on people, and, of course, smacking but not hitting.
... another confused soul who doesn't understand the difference between violent and non-violent behaviour. "Yes, I smacked my children, but I've never hit them," said Sir Brian. "Yes, I smacked other people's children, but I never hit them." I know, that was then and this is now. But if he still genuinely believes that smacking is not a form of hitting, he needs to try it out on an adult some time. May I suggest Beatrice Faumuina for size? It might do them both the world of good.
...the shame is that he didn't take the chance to reject his own generation's misguided ways last week and reinforce to the many rugby players who hang on his every word, the need for tolerance and a completely non-violent approach to parenting. He could have urged young men to work closely and equitably with their partners, rather than trying to dictate proceedings throughout. Instead we heard only the anti-women slur: "our society is trying to turn fathers into male mothers". Why is that? Because intimidating, violent or wilfully reckless behaviour is now being discouraged?
Very well said, Richard.
Labels: beer, Richard Boock, rugby
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Sad
Prime, TV1 and TV3 all led with "the Jimmy Cowan story" last night.
That story being: "second-rate employee of high-profile company has been on a few benders lately, and made an arse of himself."
The poor bastard was absolutely surrounded by cameras and sanctimonious journalists upon emerging from the NZRFU offices (which look a bit like a pre-dairy boom milkshed actually).
He was "suitably" contrite for media purposes, but might well have asked the lazy fucking hacks whether they've ever been out on benders themselves. And whether said benders have ever led to embarrassment and brushes with the law. And, if so, whether their employers insisted they go teetotal.
Get a grip, people: his is only a "rolemodel" (TM) in so far as he can catch a ball, run with it, pass it (and stop opposing players from doing same). What he does in his spare time is none of his employer's business, providing it does not significantly affect his ability to work.
And it's none of the public's fucking business whatsoever.
That story being: "second-rate employee of high-profile company has been on a few benders lately, and made an arse of himself."
The poor bastard was absolutely surrounded by cameras and sanctimonious journalists upon emerging from the NZRFU offices (which look a bit like a pre-dairy boom milkshed actually).
He was "suitably" contrite for media purposes, but might well have asked the lazy fucking hacks whether they've ever been out on benders themselves. And whether said benders have ever led to embarrassment and brushes with the law. And, if so, whether their employers insisted they go teetotal.
Get a grip, people: his is only a "rolemodel" (TM) in so far as he can catch a ball, run with it, pass it (and stop opposing players from doing same). What he does in his spare time is none of his employer's business, providing it does not significantly affect his ability to work.
And it's none of the public's fucking business whatsoever.
Labels: drunk, graham henry, media, milksheds, rugby, sanctimony
Friday, December 07, 2007
You Want Surreal?
Try this...
A bloke comes along and takes the best and most well known rugby team of all time and starts handing out their jerseys to fucken anybody half decent and tours with b-teams and then fails to field the same lineup or anything close to it for consecutive weeks for about two years, and then this team starts playing like shit from the end of year tour last year right through this year but wins most games because a) most sides we played were crap and b) we win most games all the time forever anyway. And then he takes our best 22 rugby players in the country and makes sure they don't play rugby for half the year meaning a guy like Mealamu gets 9 starts in all rugby games in all of 2007 and most others don't get many more. And then he comes out and says it was a mistake and that they will have to go back to the drawing board and work out when a good time to rest these guys is. I'll tell you mate and you don't need to give me a consultancy fee either. It's called the fucken off season! It goes for about 2 months with no serious training and about 3 months with no games. I'll even tell you the months. December to the end of February and if you aren't on the AB NH tour it goes a month longer. And then he says he doesn't want to win the WC playing ugly rugby even though he knows thats probably what it will take.
And we reappoint the guy?!
And why? Because the retards that run the game were just as responsible for allowing the AB jersey to be cheapened and the professional game domestically to get sold down the river and so by giving Henry the boot they would effectively be saying that a) they fucked up and b) Henry was a scapegoat and if he goes we should go too.
They had no choice.
Henry is a good coach, theres no two ways about it but he joins a long line of AB coaches who buried their head further and further up their arse as their time in charge went on. I seriously reckon that the NZRU should appoint a brand new coach 12 months out from every single WC because all our coaches have gone fully bananas by the time 4 years rolls around. They have gone stir crazy and spent so much time plotting for this one event that they can no longer see the wood for the trees.
But I'll tell you what. It would take a long fucken time with Henry picking the best team we have available and not a single word about systems and processes and strategies and squad building and player depth and all that crap for me to even develop a hint of respect for any of those mongrels.
Why in fucks name do you need player depth (with 15 of those guys watching the game), and two year strategies to win a WC (which you never win) meanwhile shitting all over the games in between and then watching a side with no journey, process, system or strategy or massive depth or anything come through and win the WC?
Ah fuck this. And when you see those polls with 70% support for Henry it just goes to show that 70% of those surveyed watch rugby and 30% actually give a shit about it and understand it and the damage that has been done to it.
A bloke comes along and takes the best and most well known rugby team of all time and starts handing out their jerseys to fucken anybody half decent and tours with b-teams and then fails to field the same lineup or anything close to it for consecutive weeks for about two years, and then this team starts playing like shit from the end of year tour last year right through this year but wins most games because a) most sides we played were crap and b) we win most games all the time forever anyway. And then he takes our best 22 rugby players in the country and makes sure they don't play rugby for half the year meaning a guy like Mealamu gets 9 starts in all rugby games in all of 2007 and most others don't get many more. And then he comes out and says it was a mistake and that they will have to go back to the drawing board and work out when a good time to rest these guys is. I'll tell you mate and you don't need to give me a consultancy fee either. It's called the fucken off season! It goes for about 2 months with no serious training and about 3 months with no games. I'll even tell you the months. December to the end of February and if you aren't on the AB NH tour it goes a month longer. And then he says he doesn't want to win the WC playing ugly rugby even though he knows thats probably what it will take.
And we reappoint the guy?!
And why? Because the retards that run the game were just as responsible for allowing the AB jersey to be cheapened and the professional game domestically to get sold down the river and so by giving Henry the boot they would effectively be saying that a) they fucked up and b) Henry was a scapegoat and if he goes we should go too.
They had no choice.
Henry is a good coach, theres no two ways about it but he joins a long line of AB coaches who buried their head further and further up their arse as their time in charge went on. I seriously reckon that the NZRU should appoint a brand new coach 12 months out from every single WC because all our coaches have gone fully bananas by the time 4 years rolls around. They have gone stir crazy and spent so much time plotting for this one event that they can no longer see the wood for the trees.
But I'll tell you what. It would take a long fucken time with Henry picking the best team we have available and not a single word about systems and processes and strategies and squad building and player depth and all that crap for me to even develop a hint of respect for any of those mongrels.
Why in fucks name do you need player depth (with 15 of those guys watching the game), and two year strategies to win a WC (which you never win) meanwhile shitting all over the games in between and then watching a side with no journey, process, system or strategy or massive depth or anything come through and win the WC?
Ah fuck this. And when you see those polls with 70% support for Henry it just goes to show that 70% of those surveyed watch rugby and 30% actually give a shit about it and understand it and the damage that has been done to it.
Labels: all blacks, graham henry, nzru, retards, rugby
