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
Rugby Crowds in the Most Important Year in NZ Rugby History
I'm not actually going to comment on them right now, just a promise that I might get drunk later this evening and put up the crowd stats from the Super Rugby comp thus far in 2012. The might part doesn't apply to me getting drunk. That's definately happening as my school hols wind down. It's just a matter of remembering to post the stats. Remind me if I don't. I guess it will add further weight to the idea that NZ is NOT 4 million AB supporters and that adding to the research suggesting only one million people outside the 8 major rugby nations watched the last WC final, is the fact that only one million NZers even watched NZ bow out of the last WC on a Sunday morning on free to air TV.
Labels: bullshit PR, crowds, pacific island rugby, rugby world cup
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturation coverage
Meddler Key and Aggrandizement Sharples are now proposing a joint TVNZ, MTS and TV3 bid for Forceback 2011. Quoth Te Herald: "The final, semifinals, bronze medal game and the quarterfinals will be live on all three channels."
Right, and what about the 3 million New Zealanders who don't want to watch rugby union, judging by the fact that only 1 million bothered to tune in to watch the All Blacks' (generally unexpected) quarter-final loss to France last time, broadcast free-to-air by TV3 at a reasonable hour on a Sunday morning?
I guess they could always go outside for a walk, or whatever. Christ, isn't it bad enough these poor bastards will be underwriting 2/3rds of the event's losses, currently optimistically estimated at $39 million.
Right, and what about the 3 million New Zealanders who don't want to watch rugby union, judging by the fact that only 1 million bothered to tune in to watch the All Blacks' (generally unexpected) quarter-final loss to France last time, broadcast free-to-air by TV3 at a reasonable hour on a Sunday morning?
I guess they could always go outside for a walk, or whatever. Christ, isn't it bad enough these poor bastards will be underwriting 2/3rds of the event's losses, currently optimistically estimated at $39 million.
Labels: forceback, john key, Parti Maori, pita sharples, rugby world cup, taxes
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Stats for the Quarterfinals
A few possible pointers for you.
The favourites for the 4 games are NZ, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.
Reasons are obvious. They are all unbeaten whereas their opponents have all lost a match already. No team has ever gone on and won the World Cup after losing a pool match. In fact the only time a team has dropped a pool match and even made the final was in 1991 when England lost the opening game to NZ but went on to make the final where they lost to Australia.
Combined the finalists at every world cup have had 30 pool wins, 1 draw and 1 loss and it's hard to see any of those second qualifiers from any of the pools taking the title this year.
Other reasons to be worried if you are fans or Scotland, England, France or Fiji. The opposition has won more historically against your teams (Argentina 5 Scotland 1, Australia 20 England 13, New Zealand 34 France 10 and South Africa 1 Fiji 0) and also the favoured teams all won the last encounter between the two sides. In the case of the All Blacks they have gone 10 matches v France without defeat and Scotland have not defeated Argentina since their first encounter 17 years ago in 1990.
I would be surprised if there wasn't one upset from the four games but for the life of me I just can't see which game it would be.
God help us if it's at 8am tomorrow morning. But I am tipping the ABs by a comfortable margin. In other words I don't think we will be needing a late winner or to defend our line against a barrage of attack.
And a few words on the minnows. Get rid of them. They stretch the comp out and don't have a shit show of winning anything significant. Contrary to a lot of what you have heard in the media the likes of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa ARE NOT minnows. They would all easily qualify for a 16 team world cup. It's the Portugals, Namibia's and Japan's that need to jump through more hoops to make it.
The IRB needs a better qualifying system in place where more teams are involved and the weaker teams get more matches against better sides. Not one game every four years v class opposition. In 4 years time people in Portugal will still be none the wiser that they have an international rugby team unless they are actually knocking teams over. It's a little like our mens basketball team going to the world champs and coming 13th or whatever. Most people on the street in NZ would have no idea they are there, but when they come 4th....
The favourites for the 4 games are NZ, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.
Reasons are obvious. They are all unbeaten whereas their opponents have all lost a match already. No team has ever gone on and won the World Cup after losing a pool match. In fact the only time a team has dropped a pool match and even made the final was in 1991 when England lost the opening game to NZ but went on to make the final where they lost to Australia.
Combined the finalists at every world cup have had 30 pool wins, 1 draw and 1 loss and it's hard to see any of those second qualifiers from any of the pools taking the title this year.
Other reasons to be worried if you are fans or Scotland, England, France or Fiji. The opposition has won more historically against your teams (Argentina 5 Scotland 1, Australia 20 England 13, New Zealand 34 France 10 and South Africa 1 Fiji 0) and also the favoured teams all won the last encounter between the two sides. In the case of the All Blacks they have gone 10 matches v France without defeat and Scotland have not defeated Argentina since their first encounter 17 years ago in 1990.
I would be surprised if there wasn't one upset from the four games but for the life of me I just can't see which game it would be.
God help us if it's at 8am tomorrow morning. But I am tipping the ABs by a comfortable margin. In other words I don't think we will be needing a late winner or to defend our line against a barrage of attack.
And a few words on the minnows. Get rid of them. They stretch the comp out and don't have a shit show of winning anything significant. Contrary to a lot of what you have heard in the media the likes of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa ARE NOT minnows. They would all easily qualify for a 16 team world cup. It's the Portugals, Namibia's and Japan's that need to jump through more hoops to make it.
The IRB needs a better qualifying system in place where more teams are involved and the weaker teams get more matches against better sides. Not one game every four years v class opposition. In 4 years time people in Portugal will still be none the wiser that they have an international rugby team unless they are actually knocking teams over. It's a little like our mens basketball team going to the world champs and coming 13th or whatever. Most people on the street in NZ would have no idea they are there, but when they come 4th....
Labels: rugby world cup
