having lived in nz most of my life i got exposed to rugby and league from a young age, i find both enjoyable but prefer Union i do find State of Origin to be the best exponant of the game of league do, easily over Kangaroos vs Kiwis i also followed the old Winfield Cup more than the current NRL the problem with Rugby Union is that the NH and SH seem to want to take the game in different directions, I for one cant stand the NH way of playing as its not particularly enjoyable to watch, prefer the SH way of playing (obvious bias i know) the recent Blues vs Chiefs is the way the game should be heading for the record i cant stand AFL but thats a totally different discussion
So basically you like rugby union more but want rugby union to be played more like rugby league. Mmm kay. The NH version of rugby union is rugby union, Super 14 is rugby league. Fortunately the punters know where to go, which is why the NH is buying all the SH's players.
No i dont want it to be like league if i did i would just watch League, i want tries and attacking Rugby Union believe it or not its possible all sports evolve Football clearly has evolved, the NH dont seem to wanna accept that, they might have the money but they dont have a clue, or maybe they cant handle the expansive nature of the SH game
Attacking rugby union doesn't involve short arm penalties, getting rid of the maul, and aerial ping pong involving long kicks down the midfield. I can't think of worse things to stifle attacking rugby than working on laws which work to distribute players across the pitch leading to a premium of space and fail to penalize players for infringing in the ruck. Thankfully they've been effectively torpedoed, because every union except the Australians don't want the ELVs to go through. All of this only happened because rugby union decided to cater the sport to mums and ban rucking. If you can't shoe a ********er for being on the wrong side and there's effectively no penalty for it, then there is zero reason to play by the rules and not kill the ball. The NH has the money because in the NH fans are willing to pay to go to games. For God's sake, you've got less than 18K right now for a big Blues-Highlanders game at Eden Park, and the most expensive ticket is less than 20 quid. NH teams that get 10K take in more money because their fans pay so much more a ticket. You can't deny that interest in the Super 14 has fallen off a cliff, and even the ABs don't sell out many of their games anymore. Also..the expansive nature of the SH game? Since when were the South Africans expansive? NZ rugby was not expansive until a few years ago, it was a hard game based on rucking and fast possession for them and slow possession for the opposition. You've been sold a bill of goods by the Aussies, who are dragging you down because they can't market their own game.
NZ Rugby has been expansive, we tend to use the width of the field more than any team and this has been on going for a while. not all ELVs should be used but some benifet the game people are not going to the Super 14 because frankly they moved it up way to much into the summer, and there is still a certain backlash over the 2007 debacle All Black games are still selling out no problem, but there is a certain feel that people think theres to much rugby on now, with Super 14 Tri nations and NPC
False. Several tri nations games over the past few years have not sold out, particularly versus the Springboks. Your crowds have been falling for years, well before 2007. What ELVs benefit the game? Zero as far as I can tell.
The ELVs haven't had a positive effect. If anything they've made it worse, teams would rather kick than run into the tackle and risk getting turned over. A good bout of forward play can be just as enjoyable to watch as a running sequence, the ideal match having a good mix of both. Blood and guts in the forwards to build an attacking platform, then pace and flair in the backs to finish it off or to hit back on the counter from a turnover. This is why Union is more popular than League and always will be, there's a balance and variety to it. As for the NH, I don't see how you can possibly claim that the style of play is in anyway uniform across the countries or less entertaining than the southern hemisphere. France do not play like England who do not play like Wales who do not play like Ireland. England are the only ones who have really played with a strong forward and kicking orientated game, even then they've shifted styles to score more tries from the running game and were the top try scorers in this years 6 nations iirc. Wales and France in particular have a much longer history of playing expansive rugby than New Zealand have. While Australia have been one of the most boring teams to watch for years, relying on whatever it takes to win, whether it was Michael Lynagh's kicking game or stifling the all blacks in the 2005 world cup. South Africa aren't much better entertainment-wise, although at least they've cut down on the violent play and played good rugby to be deserved champions in 2007.
When the Tri nations where expanded there was a bit of criticism in the public, but its not like people are not going to the games, I would say games are filled to a 90% capacity. I find a few that make the game faster and keep the ball in play for longer benneficial for the entertainment value of the game but thats just me
to me the super 14 and tri nations are more entertaining than what the Heineken cup or the 6 nations have to offer having said that the atmosphere is way more impressive in europe the NZ pack ran off the NH foward packs off the park in the latest northen tour, that to me showed a much fitter and stronger pack, a clear benefit of playing all year under the elvs its clear that they must come to a compromise, cant have one side of the world playing with some rules and others with another bunch dont really care what happens as long a set of rules is decided and everyone follows them
A clear benefit? The NZ pack ran the others off the park because they're better players. Remember the tour the year before the World Cup? NZ destroyed the opposition. It doesn't really have anything to do with the ELVs. People aren't going to the games. The first few years of the 3Ns tickets sold out in half an hour. Now you can turn up and buy a ticket for any game in NZ..that's a clear reduction in interest. Statistics that show the ball is in play longer don't really prove a game is more entertaining..it's clearly better for excitement that a team boots a ball downfield into touch, steals the lineout and scores in two phases rather than a team boots the ball downfield into the middle of the paddock, receives a ball back, boots it back again, and on and on until someone makes a mistake.
there has been a lack of interest for a while now before the ELV's its has nothing to do with the rules more to do with the amount of games now, but i still believe AB game will get the place 90% full, S14 and NPC is another matter altogether. Auckland is particularly bad at getting people to their S14 and NPC games you make it sounds like all they do now is kick...which clearly isn the case, there is still rucks a plenty, there is a clear lack of mauls these days but teams still use it when the situation is needed
You could make the argument that London and Paris are the same as Auckland, big national side supporters but clubs are less so. The real problem area I can see for the Southern Hemisphere is the declining interest in the Super 14 and the fact that the 6-Nations teams are simply awash in money. This can only start to tip the balance sooner or later.
The thing is people in the NH pay much more for their games than SH people. Tickets for a Super 14 game at Eden Park are under $10 for most of the seats. Meanwhile the cheapest ticket at Harlequins is about $25. So 10,000 people at Quins are bringing in more money than 20,000 in Auckland, and Auckland don't get many crowds over 20K.
How's your RSL team doing? I haven't paid attention in awhile. How many GP teams are in money problems (I remember reading about it in the fall) and did a lot of the good English players still fly off to play in France? As far as the SH-NH argument, I'll watch South Africa-New Zealand over a Scotland-England punt-a-thon any day. If people are going to talk about showcasing rugby toward people that watch American football, you're not going to gain many fans when a team's offensive strategy is pretty much act like it's 4th down every time you receive the ball from the other team, or when the rugby team's star player is the guy that kicks the points after and the field goals. (Mike Ditka, on ESPN radio once saying why he supported playing NFL exhibitions in London but not regular season games, said one reason is they treat the kicker like he is a big deal. ) Anyway, most of what I know about international rugby I learned from this guy. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_chhNjAf4&feature=channel"]YouTube - Alternative Rugby Commentary - The Best Bits of 2007[/ame]