Olympic Sevens a dead-end for rugby?

I was too wrapped up with the Lions to notice anything happening in the rugby world outside.

This opinion piece appeared in the NZ Herald a few weeks ago:

Sevens medals fools' gold

"There is good reason to think that too much may be sacrificed to ensure success at what may well prove to be an Olympic flash in the pan...In that context, it would be unwise for New Zealand to put too many irons in the sevens fire...Sevens medals would have a sickly hue if the focus on Rio meant the All Blacks' resources were diluted so badly that they strung together losses. Or if other athletes failed to make the podium because their training was compromised by inadequate funding. It makes no sense to risk just that for the most ephemeral of triumphs in Rio."

Sevens rugby is a humorous pass-time but nothing to do with the real McCoy.

It's like comparing 20-20 with Test cricket.

One is just made for television and corporate influence whilst t'other appeals to serious fans.

On that basis, XV-rugby will probably ultimately fade away.

You reap what you sow.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Sevens rugby is a humorous pass-time but nothing to do with the real McCoy.

Agreed

It's like comparing 20-20 with Test cricket.

Agreed

One is just made for television and corporate influence whilst t'other appeals to serious fans.

Sort of agreed. I would also point out that the short forms are also easier to introduce the sports to new countries.

On that basis, XV-rugby will probably ultimately fade away.

If 7s works, and if players can get paid substantially more for appearing in this form, then yes quite possible.

I think I need to lie down now.

Londontiger do you need to lie down because you are actually agreeing with Portnoy's Complaint?

There is a lot of potential for growth both in 20-20 and 7s.

I think the IPL is quite fun. I enjoy the 7s in rugby too.

I would say IPL is more serious than 7s is currently because most of the big cricket stars play in the IPL.

Currently 7s hasn't lured any big names from XVs either.

I need to lie down because already I have to consider that test cricket is taking its last breaths, would hate to lose 15 a side rugby too.

Sevens is a bit like opening a twix to find only one finger inside. Still decent but only half as satisfying.

They haven't any serious glass ceilings in sevens as yet.

If it takes off seriously, then no doubt Pilkington's will be contacted.

Everything in pro rugby is designed and constrained in such a manner as to ensure that the oligarchy is self-perpetuating.

One of the main reasons why rugby in any format is never likely to be a truly global sport.

Why do you want it to be a global sport?

Why on Earth(sic) wouldn't I, GnG?

Its unlikely to happen.

1. New Zealand have a perfectly good sevens setup that will be favourites for the gold medal anyway. No need to go anywhere near the All blacks.

2. The rugby in the Olympics wont be that big a deal. Its not a stand alone event like the IRB series or sevens WC. It will be 16 mens and womens teams taking part over a couple of days in a 20K temporary stadium that will also be used for Modern Pentathlon and Equestrian events over the 2 weeks of the Olympics. Whilst its going on, other core olympic events will also be taking place, so most of it is going to be tucked away behind a red button in the non rugby countries watching the Olympics.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Why on Earth(sic) wouldn't I, GnG?

Maybe because it is a great sport just the way it is? Give me a good reason to make it a global sport? Any "global" sports I can think of are no longer sports but businesses. I dont think the globalisation of sport is necessarly a good thing.

No idea why people are so obsessed with the notion of expansion. I prefer the idea of maintaining a sustainable sport that remains true to its ethos that makes it a great sport.

andyi wrote:...2. The rugby in the Olympics wont be that big a deal. Its not a stand alone event like the IRB series or sevens WC. It will be 16 mens and womens teams taking part over a couple of days in a 20K temporary stadium that will also be used for Modern Pentathlon and Equestrian events over the 2 weeks of the Olympics. Whilst its going on, other core olympic events will also be taking place, so most of it is going to be tucked away behind a red button in the non rugby countries watching the Olympics.

That's the point of the Herald article.

The writer thinks sevens may struggle to make an impact at Rio which means it will be at risk of being quickly ejected, just as baseball was. Consequently, he doesn't want to see New Zealand directing too much funding to something which may turn out to have no Olympic future.

GunsGerms wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Why on Earth(sic) wouldn't I, GnG?

Maybe because it is a great sport just the way it is? Give me a good reason to make it a global sport? Any "global" sports I can think of are no longer sports but businesses. I dont think the globalisation of sport is necessarly a good thing.

No idea why people are so obsessed with the notion of expansion. I prefer the idea of maintaining a sustainable sport that remains true to its ethos that makes it a great sport.

Whilst I tend to agree, I think the notion "if you're not moving forward you're going backwards" is very true for sport in general. Rugby in particular will suffer from competing sports as they expand; there's no need to look any further than Australia to see this happening.

Also, Rugby is played by almost solely the Commonwealth nations, or at the very least the old world developed countries, the old world in this sense including South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In the next century, the big contributors to sport are going to come from Africa and Asia as their middle classes grow. There's a very real prospect that Rugby will be marginalised. Aside from the cultural stigma of perhaps it being associated with former colonial powers, it is intrinsically difficult to go down the park and play it or have a game of street rugby.

As nice as it is to think insular, the world moves, and rugby must try to go with it. Increasingly, money dictates to sport, and sport is becoming not so much a raw competition as entertainment and, often, the last bastion of national identity, where people are encouraged as much to support as they are to participate. This is clearly an horrific notion to your grassroots rugby player, and I tend to agree, but the 2012 Olympics, for me at least, was illuminating for sports' role in the 21st Century.



I really hope 7s doesn't replace the 15 man game. I highly doubt it will. The All Black brand, the World Cup, and the hemisphere divide are perhaps the most entertaining aspects of the sport to the viewer, along with the greater power and contact that is missing from the abridged version of the sport. Two of those are unique to the 15 man game. I'd say a greater threat to the sport in the short to medium term is the damage the players are inflicting upon themselves. As is alluded to in the Rory Lamont thread elsewhere on this site, we are only beginning to see the effects of fully professional Rugby, and when the likes of Jamie Roberts, Stephen Ferris and Willem Alberts retire and we see the condition they are in aged 40, the playing numbers may drop significantly, or the laws of game will be changed exponentially.

If anything 7's rugby has made the ABs stronger. How many guys went to 7's and became ABs rather than playing league?

I can also point to Lomu amongst others, identified in the 7's programme.

miaow wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Why on Earth(sic) wouldn't I, GnG?

Maybe because it is a great sport just the way it is? Give me a good reason to make it a global sport? Any "global" sports I can think of are no longer sports but businesses. I dont think the globalisation of sport is necessarly a good thing.

No idea why people are so obsessed with the notion of expansion. I prefer the idea of maintaining a sustainable sport that remains true to its ethos that makes it a great sport.

Whilst I tend to agree, I think the notion "if you're not moving forward you're going backwards" is very true for sport in general. Rugby in particular will suffer from competing sports as they expand; there's no need to look any further than Australia to see this happening.

Also, Rugby is played by almost solely the Commonwealth nations, or at the very least the old world developed countries, the old world in this sense including South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In the next century, the big contributors to sport are going to come from Africa and Asia as their middle classes grow. There's a very real prospect that Rugby will be marginalised. Aside from the cultural stigma of perhaps it being associated with former colonial powers, it is intrinsically difficult to go down the park and play it or have a game of street rugby.

As nice as it is to think insular, the world moves, and rugby must try to go with it. Increasingly, money dictates to sport, and sport is becoming not so much a raw competition as entertainment and, often, the last bastion of national identity, where people are encouraged as much to support as they are to participate. This is clearly an horrific notion to your grassroots rugby player, and I tend to agree, but the 2012 Olympics, for me at least, was illuminating for sports' role in the 21st Century.



I really hope 7s doesn't replace the 15 man game. I highly doubt it will. The All Black brand, the World Cup, and the hemisphere divide are perhaps the most entertaining aspects of the sport to the viewer, along with the greater power and contact that is missing from the abridged version of the sport. Two of those are unique to the 15 man game. I'd say a greater threat to the sport in the short to medium term is the damage the players are inflicting upon themselves. As is alluded to in the Rory Lamont thread elsewhere on this site, we are only beginning to see the effects of fully professional Rugby, and when the likes of Jamie Roberts, Stephen Ferris and Willem Alberts retire and we see the condition they are in aged 40, the playing numbers may drop significantly, or the laws of game will be changed exponentially.

Thanks for a sensible response. Much appreciated.

Injuries will not threaten rugby I dont think. No more than any other sport. For example horse racing continues to thrive despite horrendous injuries and even occasionally death to jockeys. Jockeys dont even get paid well but they will continue to race for the love of their sport.

Money doesnt have to dictate sport. Two of the most exciting sports I have ever witnessed are amature sports. College football in the US and Gaelic games in Ireland. Both are thriving and self sustainable. Professionalism has been good for rugby but I just hope but doubt that with professionalism we can maintain the spirit of the amature rugby.

A lot of what people complain about in rugby these days is directly related to money: Crowded fixtures, too many injuries, flogging injured players half time shows, soulless clubs like Toulon.

Street rugby in my opinion is no different to street football. When playing on the street you have to adapt for both sports. Rugby becomes a hybrid of tag rugby and rugby league and in football sliding tackles and diving headers, overhead kicks etc. cant really be used.