RugbyRebels

It was an awful crowd that left 85% of the stadium empty as the Sunwolves played their first ever game at the venue. It was never intended to promote the game in Singapore. That's pie in the sky. It was intended to reduce the South African teams' travel requirements because SA & Japan are basically antipodes - as far from each other as Europe is from Australia. Anyway, if you think 8K for a Super Rugby game under those circumstances in a 55K stadium is a good crowd, good luck to you. Everyone's entitled to their view. But personally I think Singapore won't be with us next season, one way or the other. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...

rowan wrote:It was an awful crowd that left 85% of the stadium empty as the Sunwolves played their first ever game at the venue. It was never intended to promote the game in Singapore. That's pie in the sky. It was intended to reduce the South African teams' travel requirements because SA & Japan are basically antipodes - as far from each other as Europe is from Australia. Anyway, if you think 8K for a Super Rugby game under those circumstances in a 55K stadium is a good crowd, good luck to you. Everyone's entitled to their view. But personally I think Singapore won't be with us next season, one way or the other. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...

I think you're making quite a few assumptions here. You seem to believe that the crowd in the first game is the apogee. The closest comparison is the Aviva Premiership games that are being played in New York and they seem to believe that their crowds will increase each time they do it, as people come back and bring their friends.

The game in New York only sold 12,000 tickets, but the difference was that they gave away 2k more and stage it in a 25k stadium, so the crowd didn't get lost. I'd say it's more an issue that they haven't chosen the right stadium and didn't corral the crowd into one section, rather than anything else.

I don't know if Singapore will be involved next year, but I think there's a success to be got out of the fixtures, if they continue to work at it.

Puja

Obviously the Greater Manchester should be abandoned when it comes to developing the game in that part of the world.

cashead wrote:Obviously the Greater Manchester should be abandoned when it comes to developing the game in that part of the world.

If England played a test versus Romania(or similar standing) they'd sell out Old Trafford or Maine Road at 70 odd thousand seats or whatever the capacitys are now.

I think you're making quite a few assumptions here. You seem to believe that the crowd in the first game is the apogee. The closest comparison is the Aviva Premiership games that are being played in New York and they seem to believe that their crowds will increase each time they do it, as people come back and bring their friends.

I think a pretty good comparison could be made to the Warriors' home debut in the NRL. They promoted it like mad and it was a sell-out well in advance. That's usually how it's done, as far as I'm aware, and for that reason a team's opening game in a major competition often is the apogee in terms of attendance - invariably surpassed only if the team goes on to be particularly successful. Singapore is a city state with 5 million people compressed into one metropolitan center. If they only got 8K into a 55K stadium for their first ever Super Rugby match, that suggests to me that either it wasn't very well promoted or simply nobody really cared (possibly a combination of both).

This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

Mikey Brown wrote:This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

I didn't say they were all forward passes.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

cashead wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Also known as beefeater syndrome. Would have loved to heard his comments on the recent RWC. DC dropping goals, Richie winning back to back, ABs away from home and winning with relative ease.

Len wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote: The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Also known as beefeater syndrome. Would have loved to heard his comments on the recent RWC. DC dropping goals, Richie winning back to back, ABs away from home and winning with relative ease.

[beefeater]blah blah blah referee should've sent off Ben Smith blah blah blah, pretty sure some of the passes were forward, blah blah blah, cheating, blah blah blah[/quote]

Don't forget that there were some that were quick to defend Aurelien Rougerie for eye-gouging in 2011.

cashead wrote:

Len wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Also known as beefeater syndrome. Would have loved to heard his comments on the recent RWC. DC dropping goals, Richie winning back to back, ABs away from home and winning with relative ease.

[beefeater]blah blah blah referee should've sent off Ben Smith blah blah blah, pretty sure some of the passes were forward, blah blah blah, cheating, blah blah blah

Don't forget that there were some that were quick to defend Aurelien Rougerie for eye-gouging in 2011.[/quote]

Smith did go off. He was rightly yellowed. A red for that? No.

He wouldn't have had a leg to stand on after Englands piss performance anyway.

Personally I think several years back Super Rugby was a different beast to Test rugby more 20/20 compared to a Test match. It was a bit too much "basketball" at times, they now appear to be playing a more traditional game but at a speed that we in the NH have got to try and match if we want to think about ever winning a World Cup again or winning tests in the SH. The skills etc on display have been outstanding from all players, will we ever emulate it up here? Who knows, until a change in mindset occurs from the lowest levels in kids rugby it wont. Jones in charge of England may eventually lead to a change in the way the games played in England. Anyway Im heading off on a tangent here so back to the subject matter good win for the Crusaders 2nd/3rd XV this morning. I cant wait to see how the AB's do go without all the old heads.

Anyone know the attendance of today's match in Tokyo? Media seldom bothers to report this vital information these days.

When even the Aussie commentators are saying that the Blues are being hard done by in the scrum penalties something has gone seriously wrong. The Blues are on the brink of losing a man to the bin despite having been on top for half the match.

rowan wrote:Anyone know the attendance of today's match in Tokyo? Media seldom bothers to report this vital information these days.

Probably somewhere between 15~20k, on a rainy day.

Jaguares crowd was good. Cracking match, too.

rowan wrote:I think a pretty good comparison could be made to the Warriors' home debut in the NRL. They promoted it like mad and it was a sell-out well in advance. That's usually how it's done, as far as I'm aware, and for that reason a team's opening game in a major competition often is the apogee in terms of attendance - invariably surpassed only if the team goes on to be particularly successful.

With due respect, that comparison is nonsense. Selling rugby league to New Zealand, a country where the national sport is very similar to it and where they're next door neighbours to the effective home of the sport, is not even remotely comparable to selling rugby union to Singapore, a country with practically no culture of team sport.

If you want to look at an example of attendances being built over time in a inhospitable environment, then Major League Soccer in the USA is a fairly sensible example. They certainly didn't start off with their biggest crowds for their first games.

Puja

Meanwhile, Sam Cane's been cited for this effort. Probably should've been a yellow, maybe, so I imagine it'll be a week or two for him. I don't recall Cane spending much time in front of the judiciary, so I'd be leaning towards one week.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/supe ... r-jaguares

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:I think a pretty good comparison could be made to the Warriors' home debut in the NRL. They promoted it like mad and it was a sell-out well in advance. That's usually how it's done, as far as I'm aware, and for that reason a team's opening game in a major competition often is the apogee in terms of attendance - invariably surpassed only if the team goes on to be particularly successful.

With due respect, that comparison is nonsense. Selling rugby league to New Zealand, a country where the national sport is very similar to it and where they're next door neighbours to the effective home of the sport, is not even remotely comparable to selling rugby union to Singapore, a country with practically no culture of team sport.

If you want to look at an example of attendances being built over time in a inhospitable environment, then Major League Soccer in the USA is a fairly sensible example. They certainly didn't start off with their biggest crowds for their first games.

Puja

I'm not sure that's a very appropriate comparison, to be honest. A Japanese rugby team debuting in Singers and MSL getting off the ground in the USA ??

Also, when you talk about Singapore being a country with practically no culture of team sport you are merely confirming my original point that this is not a suitable location for the Sunwolves' "2nd home." Quite clearly they don't care much. The population is about 3/4 Chinese, to begin with. Do you think Chinese Singaporeans would be champing at the bit to see a Japanese rugby team in action?

Meanwhile, I did a quick google on the debut home crowds for both the Force & Rebels and, guess what, both were around capacity; in the former's case this entailed ovr 40K at the Subiaco. What was really interesting, however, was that, in both cases, crowds declined rapidly as the new teams failed to deliver. That was the point I made earlier. The crowds the Sunwolves have pulled so far have been relatively modest, below capacity in a 27K stadium in Tokyo, and only getting 8k into a 55K-seater in Singers, and unless they start winning (not looking promising right now), it's unlikely to get any better.

Lizard wrote:Jaguares crowd was good. Cracking match, too.

That it was, they are a really entertaining team to watch though they do love the 40:60 offload. What I find really fascinating is the change in approach in Argentinian rugby over the 8 years seems to have been really accelerated from playing southern hemisphere rugby more often. Think back to the 2011 world cup and they were still a forward orientated pack with the odd flair player. In 2007 their favoured tactic was the up and under (though the 3rd place play-off showed that the skills were there already).

Exactly as I predicted.

rowan wrote:

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:I think a pretty good comparison could be made to the Warriors' home debut in the NRL. They promoted it like mad and it was a sell-out well in advance. That's usually how it's done, as far as I'm aware, and for that reason a team's opening game in a major competition often is the apogee in terms of attendance - invariably surpassed only if the team goes on to be particularly successful.

With due respect, that comparison is nonsense. Selling rugby league to New Zealand, a country where the national sport is very similar to it and where they're next door neighbours to the effective home of the sport, is not even remotely comparable to selling rugby union to Singapore, a country with practically no culture of team sport.

If you want to look at an example of attendances being built over time in a inhospitable environment, then Major League Soccer in the USA is a fairly sensible example. They certainly didn't start off with their biggest crowds for their first games.

Puja

I'm not sure that's a very appropriate comparison, to be honest. A Japanese rugby team debuting in Singers and MSL getting off the ground in the USA ??

Also, when you talk about Singapore being a country with practically no culture of team sport you are merely confirming my original point that this is not a suitable location for the Sunwolves' "2nd home." Quite clearly they don't care much. The population is about 3/4 Chinese, to begin with. Do you think Chinese Singaporeans would be champing at the bit to see a Japanese rugby team in action?

Meanwhile, I did a quick google on the debut home crowds for both the Force & Rebels and, guess what, both were around capacity; in the former's case this entailed ovr 40K at the Subiaco. What was really interesting, however, was that, in both cases, crowds declined rapidly as the new teams failed to deliver. That was the point I made earlier. The crowds the Sunwolves have pulled so far have been relatively modest, below capacity in a 27K stadium in Tokyo, and only getting 8k into a 55K-seater in Singers, and unless they start winning (not looking promising right now), it's unlikely to get any better.

MSL in the US is a far more apt comparison than NRL in New Zealand.

Further, you're continuing attempt to use the 8000 in a 55k stadium is actually a pretty shitty and disingenuous thing to do, when taking into account that the other grounds used for rugby union are in no way appropriate to host a professional rugby game.

switchskier wrote:

Lizard wrote:Jaguares crowd was good. Cracking match, too.

That it was, they are a really entertaining team to watch though they do love the 40:60 offload. What I find really fascinating is the change in approach in Argentinian rugby over the 8 years seems to have been really accelerated from playing southern hemisphere rugby more often. Think back to the 2011 world cup and they were still a forward orientated pack with the odd flair player. In 2007 their favoured tactic was the up and under (though the 3rd place play-off showed that the skills were there already).

They probably put two-and-two together from the collective results between NH and SH teams. They still have a solid forward pack, it's just that they now have a decent backline to go with it, because they've taken the time to develop that part of the team.

When what is ostensibly their 2nd or even 3rd XV is drawing a series against a touring French side, you know they're on the right track.