I still just can’t get over that quarter final loss.
The more I think about it the more I feel we were robbed. Yes, the referee was bad and wrong and yes we contributed to our demise with how we approached the game and by the appointment of a puppet as Springbok coach 4 years ago. However, all of that (poor referee, game plan, coach selection) and the Pool construction process at this year’s Rugby World Cup is part of an insidious virus, in my opinion, which is destroying Rugby Union as we know it. It is this virus which orchestrated our demise in the Rugby World Cup quarter final match against Australia.
Chris Laidlaw in his book ‘Somebody stole my game’ wrote: “Whether we like it or not, the 2011 World Cup will make or break the long-term future of Rugby in New Zealand.”
Seeing that and reading his thoughts on the crises the game has in New Zealand at grassroots level with player numbers and funding the whole Pool construction conspiracy is probably not such a farfetched idea.
There is nothing as tasty for the mind as a good conspiracy theory to chew on. No doubt there was serious tampering with the Pool construction process for the 2011 Rugby World Cup but it all culminated I think from professionalism (attempts to increase profit margins) and not from New Zealand’s need to win.
Money and the broadcasting corporations are the real culprits here and not New Zealand Rugby Uunion management.
Think money during the Pool games. What would be more exciting for European viewers than a revenge match-up between France and New Zealand? How to keep the Northern hemisphere viewers tuned in during the later stages of the tournament? Answer: You make sure you have enough Northern Hemisphere teams in the quarters, semi-finals and one in the finals.
How to keep the Australian public interested and tuned-in? Answer make sure Australia stay in the contest.
Springbok AND All Black rugby is in serious crisis, regardless of who wins the World Cup, and I reckon Australia is the main culprit.
Australia does not have a player base or a domestic competition, and rugby as we know it is not played / taught in many schools in Australia. Australia needs Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations / Four Nations more than South Africa and New Zealand. Without it, they have no competition or club / provincial structures to build from.
Chris Laidlaw writes as follows regarding Australian rugby: “One of the most defining characteristics of Australians today is that they pride themselves on being hard-minded businessmen who can foot it in any company. There is an absence of sentimentality when it comes to business and that absence is reflected in the business of the rugby relationships. John O’Neil, a banker by trade, is a thoroughly engaging individual but he is utterly unsentimental when it comes to the interest of the ARU.
Australia is desperate to enlarge the market for rugby domestically. It has agitated for more Super rugby franchises because they are far more dependent on Super rugby for developing their market than either NZ or SA.”
By selling the All Blacks and the Boks to SANZAR we have undermined our own domestic rugby infrastructure to get broadcasting fees from an Australian Company, News Corporation. Meaningless Tri-Nations fixtures do not capture the imagination of real rugby people in New Zealand or South Africa; they just generate TV ratings for an Australian broadcasting company. These people do not care about our game.
What will sell to the Australian public- dictates how the game is developed and approached in Australia. Since the professional era the ‘keep the ball alive’ heresy has been inflicted upon Union Rugby worldwide but specially in the Southern Hemisphere. The problem with that is that the Southern Hemisphere seems to dictate rule adjustments in world rugby. Furthermore Super Rugby is all about money and pleasing spectators. Spectacular backline movements and a fast paced game has become the norm and nobody is more critical about the South African style of 10-man rugby than the Australians. Rugby is being turned at an increasing rate into a league hybrid which is all about flashy fancy pants razzle and dazzle, with orgasmic style yelling by television commentators whose main job and objective is to make it sound and look more spectacular than it really is.
Rugby as one of South Africa’s and New Zealand’s All Black national institutions, has changed dramatically, and is now in grave danger of becoming just a business, driven purely by the financial returns to shareholders in those company’s which have purchased broadcasting rights.
Unfortunately rugby supporters do not seem to be looking at the deeper underlying causes of what is wrong with Springbok and All Black rugby. If we think carefully, it actually stems from what has gone wrong with our domestic rugby.
These media driven influences are controlled and motivated without any regard for the cultural structure that has facilitated the nurturing of great talent in South Africa and New Zealand. If the game is not nourished at the grassroots level, the game will crumble, and inevitably undermine the chances of the All Blacks or Springboks winning future world cups. We should blame ourselves for letting the situation get so bad.
Just yesterday the New Zealand Herald featured two articles about the privatisation of the Super Rugby franchises in New Zealand. The first article ‘Super Rugby outfits on market by end of year’ states that New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive, Steve Tew, said the board had given approval to continue working on ways to “sharpen up the governance” of the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders.
“We are short of fresh capital or equity in these businesses and we have to find some way of injecting that into it,” Tew said.
“We’ve got an issue around the long-term financial survival of the franchises if the current economic environment continues and we’ve got to find a way of improving that.”
The board, which met in Auckland on Friday, agreed the New Zealand Rugby Union should work towards inviting parties at the end of the year to express interest in holding a licence.
It would be a similar set-up to the A-League, Australia’s professional soccer league which includes the Wellington Phoenix. The licence-holders would be able to try to recoup money through merchandising and commercial deals, though those would no doubt be vetted by the New Zealand Rugby Union so as not to conflict with deals they already have in place.
The second article ‘Super Rugby franchises up for grabs’ starts by saying that New Zealand’s 5 Super Rugby franchises – the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders – are effectively owned by the New Zealand Rugby Union but the organisation has decided that the financial model is broken.
Tew was speaking in the knowledge that the model for the New Zealand domestic game cannot continue and that plans are under way which could result in radical changes.
“A key priority for NZRU is ensuring professional rugby in New Zealand is financially sustainable,” he said.
“A draft review has been sent to provincial unions and franchises for their feedback, before it is presented to the NZRU Board for discussion.
While the NZRU board has yet to make any decisions concerning the draft findings and recommendation, the draft report clearly recognises the financial realities of the game and suggests recommendations on the future governance, ownership and financial viability of Super Rugby.
Given that we are in the middle of the review process and reviewing feedback from provincial unions on the draft findings, it would not be appropriate to speculate further on specific options or outcomes.”
If given the green light, franchises could be owned by individuals in much the same way as professional rugby clubs are in Europe.
Now all this sounds pretty innocent when looked at from a purely business perspective. The long-term implications on rugby however are ominous. This idea of private ownership is of course based on the French model. Laidlaw writes: “French club rugby has become a major economic force in recent years. The larger clubs have become enormously powerful, too powerful for their won and the game’s good in many respects. French rugby has come to be dominated by a small group of exceptionally wealthy individuals who has bought up clubs, lock, stock and barrel, and who put commercial success ahead of any other consideration. “
Considering the business powers involved in French rugby is it any surprise that this French team has shown little national pride and little evidence of cohesiveness and unity. In spite of that and the fact that they were by far the worst of all the top tier nations during this tournament they are in the 2011 Rugby World Cup final. A co-incidence? Of course it is. There is just no way it could have anything to do with money.
Back to the impact of all this on Springbok rugby.
The average Australian is of the opinion that Australia can only be successful in rugby if they play a style very similar to League, namely a fast tempo game in which the ball flashes from hand to hand in spectacular movements. That is why rucking, contested lineouts and rolling mauls have been eliminated (Rod MacQueen former Wallaby coach is on the IRB rules committee). Australians have never been good at the nitty gritty side of rugby, so they removed it from the game. This is a crime.
We in New Zealand have to have pay TV, or we are reduced to watching highlights on Australian Prime time TV almost a day after the game. Something is very wrong if the people with a stake in New Zealand provincial teams need to pay Australians to edit the highlights they get to watch, a day after the event.
Australia is the only country that benefits from the Tri-Nations tournament. I say withdraw the All Blacks, withdraw the Springboks and leave them to rot, they are destroying the game we learned to play. Stuff the money, we need to play hard ball. Australia needs us a lot more than we need them.
Imagine a Test series, Springboks v All Blacks and provincial games mid-afternoon, who cares if Australians do not want to watch?
We need to make these decisions now because we already sit in a situation that rugby is in the hands of sponsors and multi-national media interests, who are infringing on the cultural soul of the game, and corrupting our national identity and sporting values. Commercialism is threatening to make the final cut from the Corinthian values that has defined rugby.
If rugby is reduced to a franchised branch of the entertainment industry by Australian media interests, its social significance in our respective countries will decline. When domestic and international rugby becomes a media managed experience, the connection between players and the public is not as close as it has historically been in our countries. The sense of us all having a stake in our team is replaced by the players need to justify their money, rather than the team expressing our hopes and collective desire with the ball.
The game will get changed from the top down and on grassroots level, clubs will have to amalgamate or cease to exist. The surviving clubs will be at the mercy of the big franchises and they will start to live off the scraps, spilling from table. Only those franchises and clubs which attract viewers will survive and to attract viewers you need to win and do so in a style that resonate with fickle viewers who seek nothing else than fancy pants razzle dazzle stuff.
It will become a boring same-old-same-old, flap-flap, recycle game a la league rugby, which will mean the end of the fatties in rugby and the end of traditional Springbok rugby.
I have said for a while now that SARU has sold our rugby for 30 silver coins.
I had a thought about this the other day, perhaps it is time for us to withdraw from the super XV and build our currie Cup back to the hights it was during the isolation years.
We have a big enough tv audience and super sport has enoguh money to broadcast our rugby.
Besides familiarity breeds contemtp, before the SANZAR agreements came into place we had a 75% win ratio vs OZ, now it is just under 50%, why? Because we have developed their rugby at our expense.
Pluck them all, let’s do our own thing and just play against them in test matches.
Phweeew, some serious stuff and serious allegations!
I would like to know apart from the money, what have we gained from the super rugby tournaments?
We still play the same game as always, we have yet not allowed OZ or NZ to change our minds about how to approach the game. what we as suppoerters see from a game plan point of view is just a little more variation on attack and more intelligent players. We don’t expect or want our rugby to mimick OZ or NZ.
Our currie Cup takes second stage to the Super Rugby tournament.
We over expose our players with too much rugby.
Just look at the casualties we have had prior to the world cup, we had to take semi fit players to the tournamnet, andries Bekker and JUan Smith, two of our best players didn’t even make the plane out of here.
So tell me, what is our benefit in all this.
We even share our bloody TV revenue with them, even though we have the biggest audience.
Please someone tell me.
Flap-flap, flippity-flap, helter skelter rugby…
No more grunt to it in the scrums, no more stamping on an opponent lying on the wrong side. Technical rules, far too technical… opening the game up for abuse and manipulation by referees and incompetance…. too often overlooked.
On the positive side, Rugby-Talk has had more than 500 000 Page impressions in a month and 20 days…
That is more than HALF A MILLION page impressions…
Do you really think SARU gives a Continental Fukc about the average player’s well being. They are VERY quick to agree to the ANZAC inspired terms of any new deal being bandied about, and are truly slaves to the revenue.
Do you think that Oregen Hoskins would swap his Presidential Suite on the top floor of the Michaelangelo for a room at the Garden Court?
Not a fukc.
The SARU hierachy love the money and lifestyle and don’t give a sh1t about you and I, or what we think.
And you can complete as many on line surveys as you want, it’s just smoke and mirrors aimed at making the poor bastards that sit through the sh1t Springbok performances chewing their nails think that SARU actually give a damm, and will listen and change things to “make it right”.
Biltongbek is right, they sold OUR sport for 30 pieces of silver, and then hung our players out to dry.
Wankers all.
5@ grootblousmile:
So how do we take the site to the next level and keep those type of figures going forward?
Scrumdown, you are an educated man, you don’t spell fukc that way.
Rugby talk can become much bigger, we need to infiltrate other rugby forums, and then “quote” some of the articles here by reference to this site. and people will become inquisitive about what goes on here.
Otherwise the GBS must get himself a guest spot on some TV program.
7 @ Scrumdown:
Suppose we have to start marketing… if and when we have time. It’ll take a joint effort by all of us, and the first objective must be to get people talking the whole time on R-T…
The only way to achieve it is with more registered users who are active in the comments department..
After that, the world is our oyster!
8@ biltongbek:
Education is all relative to the level attained.
As one of the uneducated masses that failed to acquire a Senior Certificate, I think I am entitled to a little latitude regarding my lack of spelling ability.
9 @ biltongbek:
Time brother… time! Time is my enemy!
How do I manage to cut myself into even more little pieces by going on TV?
Flok, I am only one person…. even though I do the work of 4 very busy and productive people….
10@ grootblousmile:
Pro’s and Con’s….
The more bloggers, the more fools like those on the dark side. You’ll then need a full time moderator etc etc.
News on the wires that Gadaffi has been captured and shot in both legs, and more recent that he has died from his wounds.
If he survives he could come and work for SARU.
He dresses like a clown, and they act like clowns. Sh1t, he could even become the next SA coach.
Scrumdown wrote:
GBS, how many registered users have you got currently?
Scrumdown, I agree about the dark side, but as you say a moderator can keep them in check, but often I come on here wanting to talk a bit of k@k and then there isn’t anyone here. It would be nice to have more regular chats on here.
GBS, I ust thought of something, on another website I blog, they have a facility where bloggers are notified when there has been a response to a topic they have posted on, it sends you an email. Isn’t it possible to do that on here? It might get the guys a little more involved on a more regular basis if they are notifed someone has responded.
15@ biltongbek:
I think that one of the problems with the RT regulars is that we are, for the most part quite high up on the work food chain, and can’t spend all day talking k@k online.
Or of course there are people like me who work for ourselves, and can’t afford to spend time away from those that pay our bills. (plus I have a sh1t boss)
GBS, I need some software help.
You remember that program that you didn’t load onto my new notebook, well it’s also a 32 bit version and won’t load. Please send me a mail about where I can look for the 64 bit version.
Thanks.
13 @ Scrumdown:
Behaving reasonably and correctly is a habit… and behaving badly and argumentatively too.
On the dark side one measure is cultivated and allowed, here behaving reasonably and with respect is cultivated.
Even with a host more commenters and comments, the ethos here will be one of respect… it’ll take me kicking a few butts maybe, thereafter we won’t have problems.
You’ll find that existing bloggers like yourselves will police standards here with me without it even being a sweat…. simply saying to an offender, we don’t do things like this here… behave.
We have already bred the culture and the standards…
15 @ biltongbek:
Well, I’ve gone and cleaned the Registrations up quite a bit when we moved web hosts, so currently we are on about 320 ACTIVE bloggers and many more registered users. Readers we have in their hordes, from all over the globe.
17 @ Scrumdown:
Inventer?
Will have to source it for you… the 64-bit version…
18@ grootblousmile:
I guess the secret is to get those readers to start commenting.
Scrumdown wrote:
I have the same problem, my boss is an unpleasant bugger and last time i asked for a day off, I had to say no.
20 @ Scrumdown:
With the new SEO (Search Engine Optimized) structures I’ve built into the programming we automatically already rate much higher on the Search engines, making it much easier for folks to find R-T…
… but there is one aspect the Authors could give more very close attention to…. and that is to use the Categories Tab as well as the Post Tags TAB when writing Articles much better… (both of those are situated on the right hand side of where you write the actual Article)
The Post Tags and Categories do 2 things, namely:
1. Makes it easier to search old Archives within R-T itself.
2. Meta tags (Post Tags) help raise the Search Engine Awareness and Ranking on Search Engine Pages for the Article and for R-T in general. In other words, on something like Google it gets picked up easier and is placed nearer to the top of the search page for a prospective reader searching a topic.
Many of the Authors simply do not even bother with the Categories Tab and even more do not bother with the Post Tags Tab (which inevitably is the most important one).
15 @ biltongbek:
In the Off-Season and when IT business calms down considerably I will build some more features in, like the ones you suggested.
I took some stuff off, relating to mails received and alerts, because my Mail Boxes were flooded. There is a balance to be achieved here, which is somewhat difficult to do sometimes.
Very good article, and very well articulated, such a pleasure to read such articles – won’t be long before you’re the envy of all the other rugby blogs out there!
Guys, this is really a good site. It is my favourite general rugby site. Here we talk good rugby, and even if someone talks absolute nonsense about rugby, that person is tolerated. I have learnt a lot about rugby here, and I can actually have a better rugby conversation than I could previously.
That other site, where a lot of us started has not changed. Gutter journalism, for the most part,(they do have some good articles), followed by 5 decent rugby comments and the thread then degenerates into a mud slinging free for all. I don’t mind banter, but some of those guys go overboard.
GBS, maybe some more sponsors? But you will have to maintain your journalistic integrity so sponsors will have to advertise but not tell you what to say.
25 @ Lion4ever:
We will NEVER let go of the site’s integrity…. nobody tells us what to say or when to say it!
Now to comment on this article.
I agree with a lot of what Mclook has said. Traditional South African and New Zealand ugby has been to have a strong dominant pack of forwards, and good strong and big backs. The difference between SA and NZ is that SA will try to outmuscle their opponents, and NZ will try to wear their opponents out with being more mobile. Australia with their limited resources have to resort to more flashy rugby, but will struggle when they meet strong defence and players that can match that flash. This is what makes rugby so entertaining. The different playing styles. I get very bored watching soccer because there is no variation in my mind.
Unfortunately we have asituation where commercial interests overtake rugby interests, and thats where we have players being over played, too many big games, and the powers that be trying to make the game more attractive, but actually making it very bland.
There is nothing like a big strong pack of forwards rumbling the ball up in a maul, disrupting the defence, and then seeing the ball being taken wide by the backs, and then seeing the desperate defence, and FAIR competing for the ball.
That to me is rugby.
Still in the amateur era, In 1993, the Super 10 started. With South Africa being readmitted into international sport following the dismantling of apartheid, there was an opportunity to launch a competition which would feature South Africa’s, Australia’s and New Zealands’ top provincial teams.
Following the success of the RWC in 1995 Australia, New Zealand and South Africa rugby boards formed SANZAR to administer an annual 12-team provincial/franchise based competition pitting regional teams from the three nations against each other. A significant reason for the development of the Super 12 was the threat to Rugby Union from Rugby League which really had little to do with South Africa.
Part of the business model for the Foxtel pay TV network in Australia was to attract subscribers by offering an exclusive product which could not be seen on free-to-air broadcast television. By setting up the Super 12, the Unions had a product that was in demand from viewers, enabling them to sell a 10 year contract for exclusive television rights to News Corp for $555 million, giving them both coverage and financial support to kick start the new competition.
This meant New Zealand would have 5 teams, South Africa 4 teams and Australia 3 teams entered into the Super 12.
In September 2004, SANZAR began negotiations for a new television deal to take effect in 2006. SANZAR announced that a new TV deal had been signed, with Newscorp winning the rights for the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand and Supersport winning rights for South Africa.
The Tri Nations was seen as the “cash cow” for the SANZAR partners as it would provide nearly 60 per cent of the money from News Ltd. The Super 14 made up about 30 per cent of the deal. Australia and South Africa each got one extra team in the competition.
Meanwhile back in 2005, Australia and New Zealand were kept in the dark about the Rainbow Cup negotiations an expanded Celtic league which would include the 5 Franchises from South Africa. The Rainbow Cup though, never happened because of financial difficulties in Europe at the time.
The Rainbow/Magners league deal would involve overnight flights to Britain but it would still be in the same time zone and crucially it would mean that South Africa would get larger television audiences back in South Africa and that converts to more money. Their bottom line would be a lot healthier and in today’s time that counts for a lot. As South Africa’s home matches would be played in the same or similar time zone as Europe they would bring more to the table in broadcasting terms than their partners so a new tournament without South Africa would take a big financial hit.
On May 19, 2009, following prolonged negotiations, SANZAR unveiled its model for an expanded season to start in 2011. This model was due to be presented to current broadcast rights holder News Corporation for approval before the end of June 2009.
The new structure was based around the original ARU proposal for three national conferences, whereby each side would have played the other four teams from their own country twice and all of the other teams once, before a six team finals series. However, there were two major compromises were designed to accommodate the wishes of all three countries. Firstly, each team would only play four of the five teams in each of the other two national conferences, meaning sixteen regular season games for each team. This ‘trimming’ of the model would allow for a late February start and an early August finish so as not to overlap new streamlined versions of New Zealand and South Africa’s domestic competitions.
What it also meant for SARU was that their share of the Broadcasting deal reduced from 38% to 33% even though they had and still have the biggest television audiences.
At the start of the Super XV with the new conference system in place I voiced my misgivings about a number of things. Firstly it seemed to me that the whole model was driven by the Australian Media Mogul, Murdoch and the ARU, which now upon doing some research into the processes and expansions that have been taking place over the period, seems to not be entirely unfounded.
What also made very little sense was the fact, that a team in one conference would not play all the teams in the competition, and would there for have alternate opposition every year. Now in my view this immediately breaks down the credibility of a team’s success if they reach a play off spot when they have had an easier route in the pool rounds than another team who may have had more challenging opponents. The other problem was the fact that six team would qualify from three conferences of uneven strength. This could surely then benefit some countries more than others.
I have slowly but surely become disillusioned about the super rugby competition, the fact that it keeps on expanding and has now just become a global tournament with as many teams as the “contract” would demand for more revenue. This is no longer a Super competition.
It has basically taken over the Southern Hemisphere rugby calendar, and a Curry Cup competition that has been the breeding ground for Springboks since 1889 has become a filler in between the super rugby competition and international matches.
Most of the pool rounds of the Currie Cup do not feature any Springboks as they are either injured or in tour. The new dispensation under the Super rugby tournament means less money go to the other 9 provinces and the super Franchises are becoming overblown financial enterprises with little regard to the collective that is Springbok rugby.
South African rugby in my opinion has gained little through this whole debacle. Sure there is a revenue stream, but there have also been revenue losses. Spectator numbers are down because of too much rugby, less importance and public importance of the Currie Cup and the competitiveness lies within 5 teams only. Players now play an average of 30+ matches, have very little time for injury recovery and recuperation, shorter periods of pre season preparation and the travel factor and adjustment to time zones must be utterly exhausting.
SANZAR has effectively sold South African rugby down a hole, fast becoming a crater and it doesn’t seem to have an end in sight. There are only so many weeks in a year, at some point even the number crunchers must realise this and the fact that their most important asset, the players are rarely considered in this agreement with their SANZAR partners.
Australia has since 1993 still not been able to put any sustainable domestic system together without their SANZAR partners and is the country who on the whole have benefitted most out of this agreement.
In my opinion it is time that SARU comes to the realisation that their domestic system is slowly degrading and falling apart, and if they don’t come to their senses, development in other regions of the country will slowly grind to a halt.
Before the renewal of this agreement happens again, SARU needs to come up with either a solution that reduces the impact that the Super rugby tournament has the development and sustainability of all their provinces or need to withdraw from the Super Rugby tournament.
The future of South African rugby is at stake.
Well said BB. Fact is most rugby supporters are oblivious of what is happening or are thinking it’s not that bad. We saw a RWC this year marred by Referee blunders due to the very process you decribed here. We see SA struggling to win matches due to this same process. Money mongers like Riaan Oberholzer and the broadcasting coprporations are calling the shots and are destroying our game.
The game is changing more and more into a leaque hybrid and I don’t like it. All of this becuase the country with the least amount of public interest in the game (Australia) is trying to make it attractive for a public that have never cared about rugby union.
Fascinating info you digged-up here.
Users Online
Total 28 users including 0 member, 28 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,392,390 Page Impressions
_