Tony P & Diplomacy

Tony P & Diplomacy

Some of Tonys comments are offbase,

Dont agree altogether on this,I like the fact that he throws it out there. You just have to listen to some of those hosts to know they they are not happy with the appeal the Warriors have generated in Auckland or the way rugby is played at the moment. Why cant we compete in the Wellington market to a similar degree in the coming years.

Who would of thought that a league game would pull a bigger crowd than an Auckland/Waikato game.

Even Deaker on saturday ran a quick poll on who you would rather watch Auckland or the Warriors,although i didnt hear all of it what i did most came out for the warriors.

Yep we live in a rugby country but really they have had it very much their own way apart from fleeting moments.

Auckland is fickle, they only support winning teams.

Speaking of the Alamo..

I am not sure what comments of Tony's you are criticising.

Tony P is also used to administrating football where another sport greatly dominates, AFL in Victoria, I'm sure he's not fool at playing the media to ensure the best coverage for football.

Jim Kayes, who is the biggest rugby head in Wellington in his Rugby column in the dom post today has referred to these comments and agreed with them (to the extent that Rugby's domination of the media is not automatic).  So if he treats the comments as credible then I'm willing to back Tony P.  What's important is not to give the media an excuse to get on our back which is maybe what Dino is worried about...

yeah i think the phoenix, and NZ football in general, should take on the hard puncher with good foot movement and jab away at the crumbling defence before going for the out-of-nowhere big left hook that has been expertly set up


extended metaphor = pretentious

Rugby is in deep, deep trouble. It is failing in Australia and remember it is the Aussie market which allows the NZ rugby to reap in the money through the TV rights - Bledisloe Cup, Tri-series and Super rugby.

I feel the tide is turning (away from Union and towards Football and league)...

Union was quite exciting a few years back, maybe 10 years or so ago, then they tampered with the rules and laws of the game TOO much, to the point where everyone is confused, including players and refs. but yea its too stop start and it doesnt help watching the game on TV when kiwi commentators are soo boring, they sound bored of the game themselves

I think rugby has good reason to be afraid. just because the game is rooted deep within our culture for 100+ years doesnt mean it will remain that way.

interesting thread.

I thought back in 1982 that football was going to get a foot-hold in NZ (excuse the pun) after the nation-wide enthusiasm of watching the All Whites play Saudi Arabia and the World Cup games ...... then six months later it was if the world cup and NZ participation had not occurred.

And driving thru rural NZ I could see why. The rugby ground and stand have pride of place in the small towns and that is not going to disappear.

But the cities with their cosmopolitan population are a different  story  with the rugby tradition  not being something that ties the population together.

And I think it's especially true of Wellington which lost its rugby heart with the demolition of Athletic Park (ironically replaced with a retirement village).


phoenix rising2007-08-15 20:55:32

football can compete, we just need a succesful team. why has everyone started doting on the warriors again? cos theyve started winning! phoenix win and the all whites put in some more credible performances football can grab a foothold. look out though if the all blacks win the world cup, you think rugby saturation in media could be bad just wait for that to happen, look what happened with amercias cup and we didnt even win the fukin thing

that's a much better idea! damn...

tigers2007-08-15 22:11:46

Yeh Ive heard that Rugby was dead, Think it was after the 1981 Springbok Tour and the 1982 World Cup.

Dino102007-08-16 08:19:12

I didn't say rugby is dead. I said it was in deep trouble. And the problem stems from the fact that it went professional. There are many (if not most) games which are played as participation outlets, (from rowing to sailing, to bowls and orienteering et al) but there are only a limited number which are truly successful as professional sports. And it is in that sphere that rugby is challenged.

It's quite similar to Melbourne in that one sport saturates the market. AFL is the same - you get the sports news paper and there's about 10+ pages of AFL and 1 page of football (maybe two if you are lucky).
valeo2007-08-16 10:16:15

Another aspect in the popularity of Rugby vs Football is whats going on with the kids ,football is going from strength to strength in the schools and at junior club level. One of the reasons for this increase in numbers seems to be physiological ,size does matter in a what is very much a contact sport even rugby acknowledges this with its weight restricted games .Parents nowadays are wary of exposing their kids to the possibility of serious injury whilst playing a game where  children of  the same age can have significant physical and weight differences ,look at some of the "hits " players take in both union and league, add to this the availability of the beautiful game via satellite television  and its no wonder that as a participant sport at least it is becoming more and more popular whether this crosses over into a wider spectator base at games only time will tell.

I think immigration has so many benefits for New Zealand Football. Most of us at club level have been in teams with migrants from non-traditional (i.e. UK, Australia, S.Africa) source countries. There is a growing (if disparate) community of migrants who are from strong footballing cultures. I expect that these poeple will increase the public consumption of football too.

I agree Phil. I mentioned some ideas on how to bring those immigrants to the NZFC games on another thread. It is something I think should be a priority for the NZFC marketing team.

Agreed. Evidence of its existence is anecdotal.

yeah, the size you need to be to play rugby professionally is ridiculous...it used to be you'd have 75-80kg halfbacks, a la David Kirk, now even halfbacks and wingers etc are 95kgs plus and it seems 100kgs is the minimum for many other positions...what percentage of people, excluding those tha go to Jona Lomu's old school, are that big without being fatties?!

height is an advantage in football but lots of great players have been little

This is an interesting discussion,,,