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.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Bums on Seats
Quite literally that's what everybody was expecting to see at sports stadiums around Australasia and the rest of the world this year. Bums as in hobos. What with all the economic doom and gloom. Predictions were that crowd numbers would be rubbish at professional sports events but it certainly doesn't look that way. I guess for starters fuck all people have lost their job and secondly everybody else is either being paid the same as last year or more. Secondly people will sacrifice other things ahead of their weekly pleasures, ie their favourite sporting team, booze and a couple of dvds will remain while trips to the movies, pricey cars, and swanky restaurants are all out the door.
But a preliminary analysis suggests that there are still plenty of people wanting to go along and watch the footie provided the quality is up there.
In the NRl so far this year there have been 47 matches played. 828,830 spectators have attended and the average is 17,634. Last years average was 15,591 while the highest ever season average was set in 2005 with an average of 16,468. This years average will inevitably slide as winter sets in as well as a bit of fatigue with the novelty wearing off and also some sides will begin that slide down the ladder and a few will give up on them. But from my experience of following the crowd stats I would say that they are a good shot of breaking the alltime season record.
The Warriors have also seen a major turnaround in support. Last year they averaged 11,444 which was the second worst in the comp behind Penrith. This year they are averaging 20,083 after 4 home games which puts them second best behind the Broncos. Not bad for a side who are 3-3 for the season.
Turn your attention to the Super 14 and things are a bit more confusing.
Crowd figures are notoriously difficult to get ahold of in NZ and South Africa. The Aussies will happily publish them and are fascinated by them it seems as rugby, rugby league, afl and soccer all have a look see at who is getting folks to show up. It's a real competition in itself amongst fans of the various sports to see the attendances and tv ratings.
The NZRU is one of the only sporting organisations in the world that does not routinely release its crowd figures. There is a sports websites that publishes such figures for all professional sports comps around the world but the NZ rugby ones were missing so I emailed to ask why. The guy running it replied that he had tried to get the figures from them but they were arseholes about it and refused to supply them.
Me thinks they have something to hide.
Anyway, if you trawl hard enough you can often find them buried in writeups for games where journalists have managed to find out the figure or the commentators during the match have given a ball park figure which they have officially heard.
So from what I can gather thus far this year the NZ average crowd in the Super 14 is about 13,042. In Australia it is 19,791 (100% accurate) and in South Africa the figures are somewhat unreliable but for the 15 matches that are known its around 30,633. A rather massive difference from one country to the next. In general the South Africans get huge crowds for matches between their own teams and pretty pisspoor ones for watching their sides play the NZers or Aussies. yet another reason why they should separate from the Super 14. Nobody gets up to watch those matches from either country when they are on the other side of the earth. The TV ratings for a recent match played in the Republic in Australia were something like 1,900. I shit you not. That is One thousand and nine hundred people who watched a recent match between an Aussie side and a South African side on cable TV in Aussie.
Anyhow, that's how I passed the hour I had to kill before the Man U v Everton semi I'm about to watch... until I fall asleep.
But a preliminary analysis suggests that there are still plenty of people wanting to go along and watch the footie provided the quality is up there.
In the NRl so far this year there have been 47 matches played. 828,830 spectators have attended and the average is 17,634. Last years average was 15,591 while the highest ever season average was set in 2005 with an average of 16,468. This years average will inevitably slide as winter sets in as well as a bit of fatigue with the novelty wearing off and also some sides will begin that slide down the ladder and a few will give up on them. But from my experience of following the crowd stats I would say that they are a good shot of breaking the alltime season record.
The Warriors have also seen a major turnaround in support. Last year they averaged 11,444 which was the second worst in the comp behind Penrith. This year they are averaging 20,083 after 4 home games which puts them second best behind the Broncos. Not bad for a side who are 3-3 for the season.
Turn your attention to the Super 14 and things are a bit more confusing.
Crowd figures are notoriously difficult to get ahold of in NZ and South Africa. The Aussies will happily publish them and are fascinated by them it seems as rugby, rugby league, afl and soccer all have a look see at who is getting folks to show up. It's a real competition in itself amongst fans of the various sports to see the attendances and tv ratings.
The NZRU is one of the only sporting organisations in the world that does not routinely release its crowd figures. There is a sports websites that publishes such figures for all professional sports comps around the world but the NZ rugby ones were missing so I emailed to ask why. The guy running it replied that he had tried to get the figures from them but they were arseholes about it and refused to supply them.
Me thinks they have something to hide.
Anyway, if you trawl hard enough you can often find them buried in writeups for games where journalists have managed to find out the figure or the commentators during the match have given a ball park figure which they have officially heard.
So from what I can gather thus far this year the NZ average crowd in the Super 14 is about 13,042. In Australia it is 19,791 (100% accurate) and in South Africa the figures are somewhat unreliable but for the 15 matches that are known its around 30,633. A rather massive difference from one country to the next. In general the South Africans get huge crowds for matches between their own teams and pretty pisspoor ones for watching their sides play the NZers or Aussies. yet another reason why they should separate from the Super 14. Nobody gets up to watch those matches from either country when they are on the other side of the earth. The TV ratings for a recent match played in the Republic in Australia were something like 1,900. I shit you not. That is One thousand and nine hundred people who watched a recent match between an Aussie side and a South African side on cable TV in Aussie.
Anyhow, that's how I passed the hour I had to kill before the Man U v Everton semi I'm about to watch... until I fall asleep.
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
Sunday, June 15, 2008
No Ali
I don't care that we lost the World Cup quarterfinal.
I care that we had to put up with 25 tests over two years without the very best XV being named and I care that we had around 20 Super 14 games with our best players missing (that's close to 50 games of substandard rugby).
And then we lost a quarterfinal because of an incompetent cheating referee which could have happened all along thus rendering the hugest sporting sacrifice of all time completely and utterly useless. And the rocket scientists that run and coach NZ couldn't realise that that might happen?
Please. Just fuck off and give us some administrators that aren't cunts and some coaches that can a) get over themselves and b) teach our forwards how to win a lineout after 6 years of practice and not hit the ball up on their own a metre wide of the ruck. If we weren't the most athletic team in the world year in and year out we would be also-rans. But we aren't. We're fucken awesome. Just no thanks to the coaches, selectors and administrators.
I care that we had to put up with 25 tests over two years without the very best XV being named and I care that we had around 20 Super 14 games with our best players missing (that's close to 50 games of substandard rugby).
And then we lost a quarterfinal because of an incompetent cheating referee which could have happened all along thus rendering the hugest sporting sacrifice of all time completely and utterly useless. And the rocket scientists that run and coach NZ couldn't realise that that might happen?
Please. Just fuck off and give us some administrators that aren't cunts and some coaches that can a) get over themselves and b) teach our forwards how to win a lineout after 6 years of practice and not hit the ball up on their own a metre wide of the ruck. If we weren't the most athletic team in the world year in and year out we would be also-rans. But we aren't. We're fucken awesome. Just no thanks to the coaches, selectors and administrators.
Labels: all blacks, graham henry, nzru, super 14
Friday, May 16, 2008
NRL Tips Week: 'no mans land'
Well, we aren't quite in no mans land really in the NRL, that's probably more like rounds 14 to 19 when State of Origin has finished but the playoffs are still a bit far off to get excited about 8 X 2 point matchups. Incidentally thats the period when crowd averages go from about 16,000 to 12,000 until the pick up at the end as fans try to bring their teams home to glory (ous first round exits in the PO's)
My tips can be found at sportsfreak as usual.
The Blues have probably ended their Super 14 hopes tonight. They needed a bonus point but hell when you have to scrap for every inch to score one try and win by two points then you can't criticise them too much.
They now will have to hope that the Reds beat the Waratahs in Brisbane (very possible) and the Chiefs topple the Sharks in Durban (highly unlikely) or the Lions (or Cheetahs?) beat the Stormers. The latter match will probably be the game that gets jacked up big time with gold watches and rand flying all over the place.
And just in case you are a New Zealander living in Magadan Oblast and are having trouble logging into cricinfo the Blackcaps 222/7. Vettori has 8 runs from 40 deliveries. That's almost a newspaper lead story in itself. People will bitch and moan about our score but of the dismissals I caught up with they were decent deliveries whcih moved off the pitch a touch which is all they need to do (as Hadlee always said, they only need to move the width of the bat) and at the speed these buggars bowl at ANY poor sod would play and miss, or nick them.
Oh, yes and welcome aboard to Chuck Z. The previous missing link. Now we just need a well adjusted South Islander. Small chance.
My tips can be found at sportsfreak as usual.
The Blues have probably ended their Super 14 hopes tonight. They needed a bonus point but hell when you have to scrap for every inch to score one try and win by two points then you can't criticise them too much.
They now will have to hope that the Reds beat the Waratahs in Brisbane (very possible) and the Chiefs topple the Sharks in Durban (highly unlikely) or the Lions (or Cheetahs?) beat the Stormers. The latter match will probably be the game that gets jacked up big time with gold watches and rand flying all over the place.
And just in case you are a New Zealander living in Magadan Oblast and are having trouble logging into cricinfo the Blackcaps 222/7. Vettori has 8 runs from 40 deliveries. That's almost a newspaper lead story in itself. People will bitch and moan about our score but of the dismissals I caught up with they were decent deliveries whcih moved off the pitch a touch which is all they need to do (as Hadlee always said, they only need to move the width of the bat) and at the speed these buggars bowl at ANY poor sod would play and miss, or nick them.
Oh, yes and welcome aboard to Chuck Z. The previous missing link. Now we just need a well adjusted South Islander. Small chance.
Labels: blackcaps, chuck z, magadan oblast, nrl tipping, super 14
Monday, May 05, 2008
My 10 yen's worth
So a Conference system has been suggested for the Super 18? in a year or two.
I wouldn't say I'm totally against the idea, but really I'm actually for the idea that South Africa leaves altogether and joins Europe which is in their time zone and probably a touch closer. They have struggled year in and year out and the Sharks played the Bulls in last years final purely and simply because the Crusaders and Blues couldn't click without their All Blacks and just barely missed home semi spots which would have seen the demise of the Sharks and Bulls rather than the other way round.
Take a look at this year where once again we are back to the norm with the Cheetahs, Bulls and Lions combining for a 6 win, 1 draw and 26 loss record with the Lions one and only win coming against the Cheetahs, the Bulls wins against the Stormers, the Lions, the Highlanders, and the Waratahs, while the Cheetahs only win was against the Reds.
Utterly hopeless in other words.
And it's not like the Lions get big crowds. Just 5,000 showing up to one game.
Where the conference idea works with me is that you will get more 'home country' matches which is what tends to get the media and fans going a bit more. You will get a lot more interest and certainly more spectators at a Blues - Chiefs game than a Blues - Lions game especially given 45 bus loads of Hamiltonians can drive up for it.
Where it falls over though is the idea of teams representing an area that are based outside that area.
There are two main reasons, firstly, the teams will have to be selected on eligibility lines which restricts them somewhat. You can't have a 'PI team' where half of them are whites from Taranaki or an 'Argentinian team' where half of them are from coloured otherwise whats the point? The idea chucked out there recently with AB defections was that we should allow ABs to be able to play for any team in the Super 14, NZ based or not. But then how could we turn around and say that we can have NZers playing in any team EXCEPT the PI team, the Japanese team and the Argentinian team? You can't have two separate rules for different teams. It's a professional competition. It would be like the English Premier League saying non London based teams are allowed 6 imports but London teams are allowed 11.
The second reason is that the suggested idea that Argentina is based in South Africa, and the Pacific Island team is based in NZ will mean that those teams get very little support.
Where would you put an Argentinian team? In a main city with an existing team filled with Springboks? In a far flung outpost with a low population with sod all money? At the Lions ground where they get 5,000 people along to watch their team?
It simply wouldn't work. It's all well and good saying it will rate well on the tellie but what would have to be a very strong Argentinian team does not deserve to be playing such shit teams that the South Africans regularly turn out and base itself on foreign soil in front of piss poor crowds. What would they do? Make them play every single game away from home? They'd need a squad of 50 to cope. And people soon get suspicious of professional sport that is generally well attended that suddenly isn't. When I watch the EPL I expect the grounds to be sold out and when I see big blocks of empty seats at some games I immediately say to myself if this game isn't important to them then I think I'll find something else to watch.
The same goes in NZ. The PI team would surely be based in Auckland and I'd guess they would line up Mt Smart Stadium as the home as it's in South Auckland. Home to a couple of brown people. Unfortunately they don't typically make up much of a paying crowd at a Blues game in a team crowded with PI players. They'd get more along there but how many? 10,000 average? Less if they weren't going well I imagine. At the very least they would have to play one game a year in each of Nuku'alofa, Suva and Apia. But even that probably wouldn't be enough, leaving at least 8 games in Auckland. I say spend some money upgrading the facilities at the PI grounds and make prices affordable (after all it's TV ratings that generate the money we are always told so gate takings should be solely for the local union to profit from). And stick the whole lot of their games there. In fact why not set ticket prices based on the existing crowds. If a team gets 8,000 along like the Highlanders then make adult tickets 5-20 dollars. If Eden Park is less than half full then make ticket prices 15-25 dollars. Get these places full and be prepared to lose a little money in the short term. If people see full houses on the tellie they will want to get involved and want to tune in. Long term you can then increase prices to a money making level. And I'm sure 20,000 paying 10 dollars at Carisbrook, generating 200,000 is enought to cover expenses and make some money. It's better than average prices of 20 dollars with 7,500 there.
I think what I would do if I had a magic wand that I could wave over it all is....
NZ (Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders, Highlanders, PI team based in the islands, Force, Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Japan, and the USA based in either Hawaii or LA OR Canada based in Vancouver).
Twelve teams. Ditch the South Africans.
Play each other home and away meaning 22 games and then have a 6 team playoff system. Teams 1 and 2 get a bye. Teams 3 v 6 and 4 v 5. Losers are gone. Winners play teams 1 and 2 for a spot in the final.
Ultimately I think the goal has to be to spread to at least two other cities so they need to allow a bit of room for expansion and shouldn't figure on the one or two expansion teams being it forever. There needs to be a serious push to get a team based in China. The Super 14 needs to go in there on free to air TV. Believe me, nobody will pay money there to watch it know. The rocket scientists there recently made people pay something like 50 US dollars to get the EPL games and guess what. After the season had kicked off they had something like 25,000 people sign up in a country of 1.3 billion and admitted it was a disastrous ballsup. They should also look at allowing either the USA or Canada in but not both at once. One straight away and the other one needs to develop a bit of penis envy and allow the competition to bed in.
I think a far better option that conferences (which are going to disadvantage some teams far more than others due to travel) is to have teams play each other based on previous years finishing position. ie, 1 v 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 while teams 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 play each other twice. Meaning 19 games followed by top 8 playoffs lasting 3 weeks. that's basically what they do in the NRL right now and I'd say nobody notices because it's done fairly quietly and eficiently and makes sense in terms of fairness.
and I reserve the right to change my mind once a week for the next ten years on all that.
I wouldn't say I'm totally against the idea, but really I'm actually for the idea that South Africa leaves altogether and joins Europe which is in their time zone and probably a touch closer. They have struggled year in and year out and the Sharks played the Bulls in last years final purely and simply because the Crusaders and Blues couldn't click without their All Blacks and just barely missed home semi spots which would have seen the demise of the Sharks and Bulls rather than the other way round.
Take a look at this year where once again we are back to the norm with the Cheetahs, Bulls and Lions combining for a 6 win, 1 draw and 26 loss record with the Lions one and only win coming against the Cheetahs, the Bulls wins against the Stormers, the Lions, the Highlanders, and the Waratahs, while the Cheetahs only win was against the Reds.
Utterly hopeless in other words.
And it's not like the Lions get big crowds. Just 5,000 showing up to one game.
Where the conference idea works with me is that you will get more 'home country' matches which is what tends to get the media and fans going a bit more. You will get a lot more interest and certainly more spectators at a Blues - Chiefs game than a Blues - Lions game especially given 45 bus loads of Hamiltonians can drive up for it.
Where it falls over though is the idea of teams representing an area that are based outside that area.
There are two main reasons, firstly, the teams will have to be selected on eligibility lines which restricts them somewhat. You can't have a 'PI team' where half of them are whites from Taranaki or an 'Argentinian team' where half of them are from coloured otherwise whats the point? The idea chucked out there recently with AB defections was that we should allow ABs to be able to play for any team in the Super 14, NZ based or not. But then how could we turn around and say that we can have NZers playing in any team EXCEPT the PI team, the Japanese team and the Argentinian team? You can't have two separate rules for different teams. It's a professional competition. It would be like the English Premier League saying non London based teams are allowed 6 imports but London teams are allowed 11.
The second reason is that the suggested idea that Argentina is based in South Africa, and the Pacific Island team is based in NZ will mean that those teams get very little support.
Where would you put an Argentinian team? In a main city with an existing team filled with Springboks? In a far flung outpost with a low population with sod all money? At the Lions ground where they get 5,000 people along to watch their team?
It simply wouldn't work. It's all well and good saying it will rate well on the tellie but what would have to be a very strong Argentinian team does not deserve to be playing such shit teams that the South Africans regularly turn out and base itself on foreign soil in front of piss poor crowds. What would they do? Make them play every single game away from home? They'd need a squad of 50 to cope. And people soon get suspicious of professional sport that is generally well attended that suddenly isn't. When I watch the EPL I expect the grounds to be sold out and when I see big blocks of empty seats at some games I immediately say to myself if this game isn't important to them then I think I'll find something else to watch.
The same goes in NZ. The PI team would surely be based in Auckland and I'd guess they would line up Mt Smart Stadium as the home as it's in South Auckland. Home to a couple of brown people. Unfortunately they don't typically make up much of a paying crowd at a Blues game in a team crowded with PI players. They'd get more along there but how many? 10,000 average? Less if they weren't going well I imagine. At the very least they would have to play one game a year in each of Nuku'alofa, Suva and Apia. But even that probably wouldn't be enough, leaving at least 8 games in Auckland. I say spend some money upgrading the facilities at the PI grounds and make prices affordable (after all it's TV ratings that generate the money we are always told so gate takings should be solely for the local union to profit from). And stick the whole lot of their games there. In fact why not set ticket prices based on the existing crowds. If a team gets 8,000 along like the Highlanders then make adult tickets 5-20 dollars. If Eden Park is less than half full then make ticket prices 15-25 dollars. Get these places full and be prepared to lose a little money in the short term. If people see full houses on the tellie they will want to get involved and want to tune in. Long term you can then increase prices to a money making level. And I'm sure 20,000 paying 10 dollars at Carisbrook, generating 200,000 is enought to cover expenses and make some money. It's better than average prices of 20 dollars with 7,500 there.
I think what I would do if I had a magic wand that I could wave over it all is....
NZ (Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders, Highlanders, PI team based in the islands, Force, Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Japan, and the USA based in either Hawaii or LA OR Canada based in Vancouver).
Twelve teams. Ditch the South Africans.
Play each other home and away meaning 22 games and then have a 6 team playoff system. Teams 1 and 2 get a bye. Teams 3 v 6 and 4 v 5. Losers are gone. Winners play teams 1 and 2 for a spot in the final.
Ultimately I think the goal has to be to spread to at least two other cities so they need to allow a bit of room for expansion and shouldn't figure on the one or two expansion teams being it forever. There needs to be a serious push to get a team based in China. The Super 14 needs to go in there on free to air TV. Believe me, nobody will pay money there to watch it know. The rocket scientists there recently made people pay something like 50 US dollars to get the EPL games and guess what. After the season had kicked off they had something like 25,000 people sign up in a country of 1.3 billion and admitted it was a disastrous ballsup. They should also look at allowing either the USA or Canada in but not both at once. One straight away and the other one needs to develop a bit of penis envy and allow the competition to bed in.
I think a far better option that conferences (which are going to disadvantage some teams far more than others due to travel) is to have teams play each other based on previous years finishing position. ie, 1 v 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 while teams 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 play each other twice. Meaning 19 games followed by top 8 playoffs lasting 3 weeks. that's basically what they do in the NRL right now and I'd say nobody notices because it's done fairly quietly and eficiently and makes sense in terms of fairness.
and I reserve the right to change my mind once a week for the next ten years on all that.
Labels: super 14
Friday, April 04, 2008
Shit 14
I'll give you a sample of the radio commentary for the Shit 14 game between the Highlanders and Lions.
On Dickenson the ref: He made his international referring debut in a match between Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. "I hope it was during the day time".
On the scrums continually falling apart: "They're disintegrating, this is as bad as we've seen them".
"His elbows hit him in the jaw, he's down for the count at the moment".
"Do you want to play rugby or not?": Dickenson asking if they would like to get on with the game.
Dickenson threatens to have uncontested scrums.
"They won't need the lights soon because they'll be playing in the morning. There's been 10 minutes of stoppage time in the first 26 minutes".
"Once again an opportunity goes for the Highlanders".
"His knee was turned inside out, ... it was twisted in half ... I might just go grab a coffee ... there are players down all over the place ... you wouldn't see this in a Les Mills gymnasium".
"He'd probably go inside the circus as one of those people you see fit inside a 4 inch box".
"Noble got taken from behind".
"The halfback kicks it dead in goal, another error from the Lions".
"The balls out on the full, the touch judge has got his flag out ... it's a shoulder charge, a penalty ... give me strength, that's a soft penalty".
On Dickenson the ref: He made his international referring debut in a match between Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. "I hope it was during the day time".
On the scrums continually falling apart: "They're disintegrating, this is as bad as we've seen them".
"His elbows hit him in the jaw, he's down for the count at the moment".
"Do you want to play rugby or not?": Dickenson asking if they would like to get on with the game.
Dickenson threatens to have uncontested scrums.
"They won't need the lights soon because they'll be playing in the morning. There's been 10 minutes of stoppage time in the first 26 minutes".
"Once again an opportunity goes for the Highlanders".
"His knee was turned inside out, ... it was twisted in half ... I might just go grab a coffee ... there are players down all over the place ... you wouldn't see this in a Les Mills gymnasium".
"He'd probably go inside the circus as one of those people you see fit inside a 4 inch box".
"Noble got taken from behind".
"The halfback kicks it dead in goal, another error from the Lions".
"The balls out on the full, the touch judge has got his flag out ... it's a shoulder charge, a penalty ... give me strength, that's a soft penalty".
Labels: super 14
Saturday, March 22, 2008
When Catholic Robots Attack
Open Sesame
The bloody ref did the Roosters no favours with most of the 50/50s going against them. The disallowed try was pretty dodgy as well, although in saying that there was a clear obstruction, it just wouldn't have made any difference to a try being scored. But if an attacking player smacked somebody in the head on the other side of the field they would disallow the try so what's the difference? They are both not allowed.
Meanwhile if anybody is still watching the rugby I have to ask why? Crusaders v Waratahs was ratshit in the first half and the Crusaders were at their typical best in the second. Highlanders are a team of amateurs playing professionally, the Blues game was just described as "bloody awful" by radio commentator John Drake and none of the other teams are worth mentioning they are that crap. Drink piss and watch American Idol until 9:30 then tune into the league.
Labels: attack, catholic, league, nrl, pope, robot, super 14
Thursday, April 12, 2007
My Wife Has 547 Unread Emails
Should I be Concerned?
Or should I go back to drinking bourbon and coke from my milkshake glass?
Maybe she has a spamalker?
Anybody played texas holdem' poker? I just earnt 5$ for my daughters piggy bank towards her university education which should be about $12,000 a year and counting in 2023 and promptly lost $10 of my own money. Good game. I recommend playing low stakes but high buy ins which makes the game more fun but less riding on them. You can get a few games in in the night and only face losing 5 dollars per game over the course. If you play higher stakes of say 10 dollars then people play more conservatively and the games drag out over hours and you end up with folks watching for an hour and a half with nothing to do. For example one game of 10 dollar buy ins would go for 2-3 hours whereas 5 dollar buyings might last an hour and a half and then you can rejoin.
A bit like betting on an Aussie Super 14 team. You lose your ten bucks and have to watch it go down the shitter for 80 minutes.
Seriously, next time NSW or the Reds rock up to Auckland or Christchurch go to the bank and raise a loan of 10 million dollars. You will make a guaranteed million dollars if the home odds are $1.10. In fact I don't know why banks don't bet on such games. It is a far quicker way of earning that amount of money rather than sending it to 19 different countries, 7 different arms dealers, 13 diamond smugglers and 14 separate chinese laundromats.
KRS-ONE FOOLS.
Here's ma alligator haters for round 4
Sydney Roosters 10 Brisbane 32 (11476) *pathetic. Couldn't have happened to a better team.
Souths 10 Bulldogs 34 (34315) ***** awesome (although many would be Bulldogs fans)
Newcastle 12 Melbourne 22 (20051) ****
North Queensland 25 Wests Tigers 24 (21879) *****
Parramatta 38 Canberra 6 Parramatta (10091) **
Penrith 22 Gold Coast Titans 24 (15022) ****
Manly 13 New Zealand 10 Brookvale (16418) *** considering they were unbeaten and playing a decent team they could have done a bit better.
Cronulla 40 Dragons 4 (19137) **** Way to go faggoty arse homos.
Warriors need to win this weekend to reconvince me of a top 4 spot otherwise I might need to re-evaluate things to a top 6 position.
Or should I go back to drinking bourbon and coke from my milkshake glass?
Maybe she has a spamalker?
Anybody played texas holdem' poker? I just earnt 5$ for my daughters piggy bank towards her university education which should be about $12,000 a year and counting in 2023 and promptly lost $10 of my own money. Good game. I recommend playing low stakes but high buy ins which makes the game more fun but less riding on them. You can get a few games in in the night and only face losing 5 dollars per game over the course. If you play higher stakes of say 10 dollars then people play more conservatively and the games drag out over hours and you end up with folks watching for an hour and a half with nothing to do. For example one game of 10 dollar buy ins would go for 2-3 hours whereas 5 dollar buyings might last an hour and a half and then you can rejoin.
A bit like betting on an Aussie Super 14 team. You lose your ten bucks and have to watch it go down the shitter for 80 minutes.
Seriously, next time NSW or the Reds rock up to Auckland or Christchurch go to the bank and raise a loan of 10 million dollars. You will make a guaranteed million dollars if the home odds are $1.10. In fact I don't know why banks don't bet on such games. It is a far quicker way of earning that amount of money rather than sending it to 19 different countries, 7 different arms dealers, 13 diamond smugglers and 14 separate chinese laundromats.
KRS-ONE FOOLS.
Here's ma alligator haters for round 4
Sydney Roosters 10 Brisbane 32 (11476) *pathetic. Couldn't have happened to a better team.
Souths 10 Bulldogs 34 (34315) ***** awesome (although many would be Bulldogs fans)
Newcastle 12 Melbourne 22 (20051) ****
North Queensland 25 Wests Tigers 24 (21879) *****
Parramatta 38 Canberra 6 Parramatta (10091) **
Penrith 22 Gold Coast Titans 24 (15022) ****
Manly 13 New Zealand 10 Brookvale (16418) *** considering they were unbeaten and playing a decent team they could have done a bit better.
Cronulla 40 Dragons 4 (19137) **** Way to go faggoty arse homos.
Warriors need to win this weekend to reconvince me of a top 4 spot otherwise I might need to re-evaluate things to a top 6 position.
Labels: bourbon, poker, rugby league, super 14, warriors
