Who are you watching as priority?

@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.

Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,

I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .

There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.

Case in point:

• Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
• Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
• Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@booboo said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Currently 71% to 18% ..

FYI... interview with Louusa Wall ..

View embedded content

7:15 am Thursday from 3:13 in.

You 71% "are out of line in New Zealand .." according to Wall.

Also ..

"The public [are wanting the Black Ferns to be the priority]"

...and it was an intentional decision by NZR...

Hosking's comment that the ABs are understandably the priority is correct as the money they generate funds all the levels below. Including the BFs.

So accept that that the blokes are subsidising you, or get paid less.

Not necessarily the case. As NZRPA rightly point out, the women’s game has huge value to sponsors. They actively encourage the growth.
The concept that it is solely eyes on the tv that generates cash is incorrect.

If there isn't viewership, then it isn't sponsorship, it's charity. Women don't support women's sports like men support sports.

@antipodean maybe that is one for the politics thread or elsewhere.
This discussion is about whether the women’s game brings value to the NZRU.
I think you may need to widen your view on how sponsorship works these days. Do any of us give a shit about Altrad? I doubt it. At least not to any extent of direct effect. The same situation applies with the women’s game. Call it virtue signalling if you will but major sponsors want their name associated with the women’s game, not because of viewership but because of association and active support.
NZRPA have done the maths and suggest that the idea that the men’s game supports the women’s is a fallacy. Major funding that supports the men’s game is dependent on a functioning women’s game.
Viewership is obviously a factor with things like TV rights but even then broadcasters want more women’s programming with or without equal viewing. Broadcasters need new product. The women’s game provides.
There is also the factor that NZR would be stupid to ignore the only growing area of the game.
Think of it like a big corporate brewer. The DB Export might pay the wages but they also need to invest in the “craft” offerings in their portfolio.
For me, if the men’s game wants to survive and be strong the women’s game needs to be part of the total sports offerings.

@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,

I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .

I think they are a few years off it and that’s understandable because the AFLW players right now are basically women who grew up playing other team or individual sports at a decent level, are runners turned footy players and never played any high level junior footy.

As the junior footy level gets better and more girls play it competitively from a younger age and those unique Aussie rules instincts become more natural, then we will see better. I’ve taken my kids to a couple of AFLW games this season and for seasoned AFL watchers it’s a tough watch, but my kids enjoyed it especially a couple of my younger ones who just watch it for what it is.

I kind of think womens league is probably the most watchable of the lot.

You know I’m a league supporter so you’ll take this the right way, but it’s a simpler game with very little nuance to it - run hard and straight ahead, don’t fluff the play of the ball and tackle. No scrums, no rucks, no 360 degree vision, no kicking or passing for the majority of them, no handballs etc

Played both rugby codes and got involved with a bit of defensive coaching in Aussie rules .
I agree with everything you said

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean maybe that is one for the politics thread or elsewhere.

No, it goes directly to support.

This discussion is about whether the women’s game brings value to the NZRU.

Which in the final analysis is financial.

I think you may need to widen your view on how sponsorship works these days. Do any of us give a shit about Altrad? I doubt it. At least not to any extent of direct effect. The same situation applies with the women’s game. Call it virtue signalling if you will but major sponsors want their name associated with the women’s game, not because of viewership but because of association and active support.

So you agree sponsors of the women's game aren't expecting to see a return, it's all about ESG.

NZRPA have done the maths and suggest that the idea that the men’s game supports the women’s is a fallacy. Major funding that supports the men’s game is dependent on a functioning women’s game.

If that were the case, it would be self sufficient in terms of funding. Is it?

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.
Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends. Whatever the motivations for that income it still exists.
Sponsors take into account direct and indirect benefits from their spends. It isn’t always direct and if a BCR pans out to their advantage then they will invest.

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.

It's professional sport. Finances matter.

Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.

Show me the data.

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.

It's professional sport. Finances matter.

Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.

Show me the data.

We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.

The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.

It's professional sport. Finances matter.

Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.

Show me the data.

We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.

The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.

The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.

Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.

@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Stargazer said in Who are you watching as priority?:

I read the question wrong and picked BFs.

If both games were on Sky, I'd indeed watch the BFs live because it's a World Cup QF and the ABs game is just a meaningless money grab. But I don't have Spark Sport, so I'll watch the ABs live and the replay of the BFs game on TV3.

We are growing the game….

I think it’s a good fixture heading into a northern tour.

I agree it's not a meaningless fixture at all, Japan just hosted a RWC and there's plenty of interest in the game over there, I think playing them more often is a great thing to do.

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@booboo said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Currently 71% to 18% ..

FYI... interview with Louusa Wall ..

View embedded content

7:15 am Thursday from 3:13 in.

You 71% "are out of line in New Zealand .." according to Wall.

Also ..

"The public [are wanting the Black Ferns to be the priority]"

...and it was an intentional decision by NZR...

Hosking's comment that the ABs are understandably the priority is correct as the money they generate funds all the levels below. Including the BFs.

So accept that that the blokes are subsidising you, or get paid less.

Not necessarily the case. As NZRPA rightly point out, the women’s game has huge value to sponsors. They actively encourage the growth.
The concept that it is solely eyes on the tv that generates cash is incorrect.

If there isn't viewership, then it isn't sponsorship, it's charity. Women don't support women's sports like men support sports.

View embedded content

Good old Bill sure tells it like it is.

As has probably been evident from the ( lack of ) quality of my sports analysis on here I don’t have the time or inclination to watch a hell of a lot of sport these days compared to my early 20s ( Yet paradoxically enough I still stick around on a Rugby forum )

Woman’s Rugby is VERY far down the list of stuff to watch. If a person wants to watch, support etc then they can fill their boots but it’s just not for me. Just a slower, weaker, less skilled and less athletic version of the male game. That’s how it is to me and lots of others.

@ACT-Crusader said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Stargazer said in Who are you watching as priority?:

I read the question wrong and picked BFs.

If both games were on Sky, I'd indeed watch the BFs live because it's a World Cup QF and the ABs game is just a meaningless money grab. But I don't have Spark Sport, so I'll watch the ABs live and the replay of the BFs game on TV3.

We are growing the game….

I think it’s a good fixture heading into a northern tour.

ne too. we (and every other top side) should play more nations of this level rather than just big money fixtures.

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.

It's professional sport. Finances matter.

Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.

Show me the data.

We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.

The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.

The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.

Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.

"Warm and Fuzzies" and "Financial Return" are not mutually exclusive.

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.

Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,

I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .

There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.

Case in point:

• Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
• Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
• Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.

my view is that the AFL size field is just too big for the women. They aren't quick enough, nor can they kick far enough. Make the field smaller and i think the game gets better

There are some great female athletes playing. But not enough, and even then...

i still fucking love Orla O'Dwyer though

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Crucial said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean I am actually very surprised how narrow your view is.

It's professional sport. Finances matter.

Yes, value is financial and, as mentioned, the numbers have been calculated and don’t support your argument. The women’s game brings in more money than it spends.

Show me the data.

We are both talking about finances. Sponsors put in money because they see benefits. They see benefits to themselves in supporting the game as a whole, including the womens game. If the womens game wasn't there they wouldn't see as much benefit.
I dont know how much clearer I can make it.

The irony here is I'm feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. Sponsorship implies a positive return from association with a brand. If that return isn't financial (advertising outlay for the same exposure, purchasing of products by fans etc.) then it's ESG related - warm and fuzzies.

The data isn't released publically. I am going of statements by Rob Nicholl.

Then I'm sceptical based on real world examples practically everywhere else.

"Warm and Fuzzies" and "Financial Return" are not mutually exclusive.

Sure, profits give me warm and fuzzies.

@mariner4life they have two less players on the field than the men. I never quite got that because the so called justification for it -“open the game up” doesn’t stack up. There’s also the “we want to be unique to the men” angle that I’ve heard a few times.

Get 18 on the field, do the 6-6-6 thing and the game will be better just from that.

@mariner4life said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@antipodean said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@kiwiinmelb said in Who are you watching as priority?:

@Frank said in Who are you watching as priority?:

Women's rugby sucks and no amount of marketing BS will convince me otherwise.

Here in Australia they play a womens version of afl ,

I find that one to be the worst of the womens football codes , the skills required to play that game seem to be more difficult for them to master .

There's too many teams in the AFLW, which dilutes the talent and its value as a sporting spectacle. This is most noticeable when a team can't score a single goal in the entire match.

Case in point:

• Crows vs Giants. Giants scored a single solitary behind and were thumped 97 - 1.
• Kangaroos vs Swans. Swans matched the Giants' scoring prowess. And got beaten by 68 points.
• Power vs Crows. Power scored three behinds to lose by 60.

my view is that the AFL size field is just too big for the women. They aren't quick enough, nor can they kick far enough. Make the field smaller and i think the game gets better

There are some great female athletes playing. But not enough, and even then...

i still fucking love Orla O'Dwyer though

I watch richmond a bit but havent seen all the teams, but they do have a little midfielder monique conti who is a great little player ,(apparently was a good basketballer too ) , but she is almost too good for her teammates will make a great play swerving and beating defenders with her pace and then hit a teammate with a beautiful drilling kick and then they cant catch it

She is on a different level

The advent of women's professional teams in traditional male sports needs to concentrate talent so the games are as high quality as possible and competitive between teams. The skill level across the competitions will naturally increase as a result of uptake at an earlier age and access to professional coaching.

The difference in women's soccer between now and only a decade ago is huge.