Rugby Championship - what's the point?
-
Saw this on match attendances at another site:
'''
2012 - 532'644 (44'387/match)
2013 - 488,113 (40,676/match) - Down 8.4% from previous
2014 - 430,582 (35,882 per match) - Down 12% from previous
2015 - 243,416 (40,569 per match) - Only 6 matches compared to previous 12 matches - but average up by 13%2016 - 431,288 (35,941 per match) - 0.2% increase from 2014.
2017 - 367,318 (30,610 per match) - Down 15% from previousSo since 2012 to 2017.. the overall drop in crowds has been a whopping 31%....
'''@tim playing at a ground like Trafalgar Park vs say EP will distort attendance numbers, but assume they woulda got over 40k to EP last night?
THere is a point, but with Aus and SA at low points, makes it less appealing, but with us at the arse end of the world, dont really have many other options to look at.
-
@tim playing at a ground like Trafalgar Park vs say EP will distort attendance numbers, but assume they woulda got over 40k to EP last night?
THere is a point, but with Aus and SA at low points, makes it less appealing, but with us at the arse end of the world, dont really have many other options to look at.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby Championship - what's the point?:
@tim playing at a ground like Trafalgar Park vs say EP will distort attendance numbers, but assume they woulda got over 40k to EP last night?
EP was full - about 46k I think. That said, Brisvegas was worryingly ligt on attendance last night.
-
The draw shake-up can't come soon enough.
That's the main issue for me, the whole thing just follows the same predictable pattern year in, year out.
Round 1 - NZ roll over Australia, and SA get off to a good start against the Pumas
Round 2 - NZ roll over Australia, and SA play out a tight one in Argentina
Round 3 - NZ roll over a plucky Argentina (who bring their A game), while SA and Aus play out a fairly tight, dire match in Brisbane
Round 4 - NZ roll over SA who look decent for 30 minutes but then fade, while Aus beat an underwhelming ArgentinaThen we actually get to the more variable games, with Australia and NZ going to SA and Argentina.
It's just so damn predictable. Why can't we start with NZ in South Africa? Australia in Argentina? Change it up.
I'd love a Bledisloe towards the end of the tournament, where NZ have more to play for and Australia may have a bit of momentum.
-
The draw shake-up can't come soon enough.
That's the main issue for me, the whole thing just follows the same predictable pattern year in, year out.
Round 1 - NZ roll over Australia, and SA get off to a good start against the Pumas
Round 2 - NZ roll over Australia, and SA play out a tight one in Argentina
Round 3 - NZ roll over a plucky Argentina (who bring their A game), while SA and Aus play out a fairly tight, dire match in Brisbane
Round 4 - NZ roll over SA who look decent for 30 minutes but then fade, while Aus beat an underwhelming ArgentinaThen we actually get to the more variable games, with Australia and NZ going to SA and Argentina.
It's just so damn predictable. Why can't we start with NZ in South Africa? Australia in Argentina? Change it up.
I'd love a Bledisloe towards the end of the tournament, where NZ have more to play for and Australia may have a bit of momentum.
@barbarian was chatting to someone last week and he reckons the Saffas are extremely difficult to get dates out of for scheduling (he runs a tour business and tries to plan tours around the matches there and the Saffas are notoriously slow and inflexible)
That said, yep, it'd be nice for a bit of variance, or throw the current format and making home and away alternate years, either 1 match v each opponent, or make it 2 but both in one country?
-
Blame Ozzie for that, they set the program of Bled 1&2 first, starting in Oz, under Pulver. He thought it was a great way for Ozzie to get the excitement going in rugby for Oz - sadly Oz have played like spastics since, a flaw in his grand plan
-
The problem isn't one of scheduling. it's one of competitiveness. If any one of these \four teams could win at home against all opposition, it would be a thrilling comp.
-
Blame Ozzie for that, they set the program of Bled 1&2 first, starting in Oz, under Pulver. He thought it was a great way for Ozzie to get the excitement going in rugby for Oz - sadly Oz have played like spastics since, a flaw in his grand plan
@machpants said in Rugby Championship - what's the point?:
Blame Ozzie for that, they set the program of Bled 1&2 first, starting in Oz, under Pulver. He thought it was a great way for Ozzie to get the excitement going in rugby for Oz - sadly Oz have played like spastics since, a flaw in his grand plan
But like all things doesn't it require SANZAAR approval?
I don't deny the push could have been done by the ARU, but everyone has to sign off on this, surely...
-
Yeah sure, but Oz really wanted it, and they got it. It wasn't worth a fight at the time - SA and NZ gave for Oz's take. I think it was a mistake, having same game set up year after year, no other tournament does it.
@machpants Do you have a source for that? Not necessarily doubting you, but I'd be interested to read more about that decision.
-
Would love the ABs to start TRC in South Africa. Hostile environment, travel factor would be a real test.
Right now the Bledisloe has no real build up or momentum behind it. Have it at the end could do that.
-
@machpants Do you have a source for that? Not necessarily doubting you, but I'd be interested to read more about that decision.
@barbarian said in Rugby Championship - what's the point?:
@machpants Do you have a source for that? Not necessarily doubting you, but I'd be interested to read more about that decision.
My mistake it was Pulver's predecessor. A quick Google gives:
-
If you take us out if it, it's a pretty good competition. The other teams are all pretty close, and tend to split their results (except for Argentina's strange mental block against Aus).
Do you think the 6N would benefit from having us in it? (ignoring the huge geographical issue). You would end up with the same thing, and even competition with a runaway leader (less so because every team only plays us once).
Which ever way you look at it, we're the anomaly.
-
If you take us out if it, it's a pretty good competition. The other teams are all pretty close, and tend to split their results (except for Argentina's strange mental block against Aus).
Do you think the 6N would benefit from having us in it? (ignoring the huge geographical issue). You would end up with the same thing, and even competition with a runaway leader (less so because every team only plays us once).
Which ever way you look at it, we're the anomaly.
@mariner4life good points.
Fucken love being an anomaly!
-
Saw this on match attendances at another site:
'''
2012 - 532'644 (44'387/match)
2013 - 488,113 (40,676/match) - Down 8.4% from previous
2014 - 430,582 (35,882 per match) - Down 12% from previous
2015 - 243,416 (40,569 per match) - Only 6 matches compared to previous 12 matches - but average up by 13%2016 - 431,288 (35,941 per match) - 0.2% increase from 2014.
2017 - 367,318 (30,610 per match) - Down 15% from previousSo since 2012 to 2017.. the overall drop in crowds has been a whopping 31%....
''' -
Would love the ABs to start TRC in South Africa. Hostile environment, travel factor would be a real test.
Right now the Bledisloe has no real build up or momentum behind it. Have it at the end could do that.
