General footy chat SYDNEY MEDIA

[redunderthebed]

Nothing has changed in the 40 years since the Swans came to town. The Sydney Herald on Saturday and Sunday had zero articles on AFL. No idea if the Tele had anything.
Sure, it's an NRL town and the supposed interest from the readers dictates the , in my view, excessive coverage. BUT, to have two pages each day on Rugby Union where the viewing audience, followers and players would be lucky to fill into a life boat from the Manly Ferry , is obscene.
Why doesn't the media departments (if they excist) at the SWANS and the GIANTS, get off their bums and start providing input to the Sydney media and not just 'bar up' when Buddy breaks a record or when Longmire cracks a smile?????.
OK, the AFL journos must have to write the cooking section, Dorothy Dix, obituaries and pour the tea too , but with 633,000 viewers for the Swans/Cats game, you'd think the media would really want to suck up to the AFL supporters in Sydney and Brisbane.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

The thing that surprised me when I used to visit Melbourne on a weekly basis was how much media attention was given to the Storm and the NRL in general.
In Sydney the opposite is emphatically not true. As you say, Union gets far more attention than AFL in the SMH, the AFL was the first section of the SMH sports secion to get cut as the page-count of the paper dropped. Last time I bought a SMH, 40% of the paper was Harvey Norman advertising.

[dimelb]

We also get the SMH and having come back to Sydney (actually the Costa Lantana) we were also surprised to discover a pile of attention to a game that on an average day manages to round up about 10% of what we get at the SCG.
Of course now the SMH is owned by Channel 9 who have minimal interest in AFL.

[royboy42]

Nothing has changed in the 40 years since the Swans came to town. The Sydney Herald on Saturday and Sunday had zero articles on AFL. No idea if the Tele had anything.
Sure, it's an NRL town and the supposed interest from the readers dictates the , in my view, excessive coverage. BUT, to have two pages each day on Rugby Union where the viewing audience, followers and players would be lucky to fill into a life boat from the Manly Ferry , is obscene.
Why doesn't the media departments (if they excist) at the SWANS and the GIANTS, get off their bums and start providing input to the Sydney media and not just 'bar up' when Buddy breaks a record or when Longmire cracks a smile?????.
OK, the AFL journos must have to write the cooking section, Dorothy Dix, obituaries and pour the tea too , but with 633,000 viewers for the Swans/Cats game, you'd think the media would really want to suck up to the AFL supporters in Sydney and Brisbane.

I also noticed that.
In fact, I had doubts and went back and rechecked at the time, cos I couldn't quite believe it.
Granted we've never been the SMH's love child, but since the ownership change , if it doesn't involve Bud, any Swans' news is ignored.
Big media does what big media wants, but I would have thought the commercial realities of the comparitive numbers following RU and AFL would dawn on the financial decision makers at the Herald.
Old school tie is still a big deal here in the sporting codes, and may contribute.
We'll be the King of the Kids in September if we continue on our current trajectory, and the Herald will be all over us.
Can't comment on Tele coverage.
Nothing Murdoch crosses my threshold.

[Mel_C]

On Footy Classified last week they showed footage from channel 9 news in Sydney reporting on Fremantle coach Justin Longmuir. The presenter called him John Longmuir and the writing on the screen called him Justin Longmire!

[dejavoodoo44]

We also get the SMH and having come back to Sydney (actually the Costa Lantana) we were also surprised to discover a pile of attention to a game that on an average day manages to round up about 10% of what we get at the SCG.
Of course now the SMH is owned by Channel 9 who have minimal interest in AFL.

Since Channel 9 is the NRL broadcaster, that minimal interest has probably progressed to antipathy.

[KTigers]

Yes, coverage in the SMH (paper version) this season is close to nothing. But who reads that anyway? I'm pretty sure we are the only
people in our street that get it delivered every day. There is a bit more coverage in the online version. I think with the SMH it depends
on whether there is anyone working there that is actually interested in footy and wants to cover it. Awhile back there was a guy
named Richard Hinds who wrote a fair bit about footy for the SMH. I'd imagine the SMH would be running on a shoestring these
days so maybe there is no money to pay anyone. That's just a reflection of the changing media landscape though.
I am in the US currently and unless it's a really big city (LA, Chicago, NY) the local city papers are just as pithy here as the SMH is
these days. You need a ten million plus population in the city and/or be owned by a billionaire to be able to publish a paper that
resembles anything like a paper of twenty or thirty years ago.

[Kumarangk]

I also laugh at the coverage Union gets in the Herald. The game itself has gone to crap in Australia and crowds are down massively and TV ratings as well but one can only guess the management of the media in general in Sydney come from private schools so union is more a business networking tool than a game ? They have two that write on AFL , a bloke from Melbourne ? and Andrew Yu ( ? ) who writes as if it is a chore and without any insight whatsoever. I am a Red & White NRL fan as well and a lot of my NRL mates also at least watch on TV every Swans game but never watch Super what every number it is now, union. I would love at least an article a day as the Swans deserve it but the fact that 90% of Swans players can live privately & freely in Sydney has and continues to be a massive bonus & also incentive for prospective interstate recruitment in escaping their fishbowl existence.

[redunderthebed]

Yes, Rugby Union is the go-to sport for Sydney corporate. They fondly reminisce about days gone when they were a hero at the Scotts/Riverview punch up(sorry, game) while lunching with similar types at the Australia Club.
Nowadays these 'high rollers' struggle to name ONE player in the Wallabies. And their kids are more interested in AFL.
Mind you, in the Melbourne corporate world, they have the same situation with AFL.
The main difference is that Rugby is dead and never likely to be resurrected.

[Bloods05]

Yes, Rugby Union is the go-to sport for Sydney corporate. They fondly reminisce about days gone when they were a hero at the Scotts/Riverview punch up(sorry, game) while lunching with similar types at the Australia Club.
Nowadays these 'high rollers' struggle to name ONE player in the Wallabies. And their kids are more interested in AFL.
Mind you, in the Melbourne corporate world, they have the same situation with AFL.
The main difference is that Rugby is dead and never likely to be resurrected.

Speaking very much as an outsider to both rugby codes, I have to say that union in particular does not have much intrinsic appeal as a spectacle. I watched a game in Sydney a few years ago, with an open mind, and couldn't believe how little happened for what seemed an interminable amount of time.

[royboy42]

Speaking very much as an outsider to both rugby codes, I have to say that union in particular does not have much intrinsic appeal as a spectacle. I watched a game in Sydney a few years ago, with an open mind, and couldn't believe how little happened for what seemed an interminable amount of time.

I add this as a comment not a judgement.
When I moved to Sydney from Melbourne in the mid 60s, I thought , as a footy tragic, I'd better at least see what RL looked like live.
Went out to the SCG one sunny afternoon, sat on grass where O'Reilly stand is now.
Easts v Wests.
80 minutes I'll never get back.
So different to what I was brought up on and appeared slow, dull and lifeless.
First and last live game.
But have developed a minor tv interest in the Storm, so not a mindless denier.

[Bloods05]

I add this as a comment not a judgement.
When I moved to Sydney from Melbourne in the mid 60s, I thought , as a footy tragic, I'd better at least see what RL looked like live.
Went out to the SCG one sunny afternoon, sat on grass where O'Reilly stand is now.
Easts v Wests.
80 minutes I'll never get back.
So different to what I was brought up on and appeared slow, dull and lifeless.
First and last live game.
But have developed a minor tv interest in the Storm, so not a mindless denier.

I'm pretty much the same.

[Kumarangk]

I add this as a comment not a judgement.
When I moved to Sydney from Melbourne in the mid 60s, I thought , as a footy tragic, I'd better at least see what RL looked like live.
Went out to the SCG one sunny afternoon, sat on grass where O'Reilly stand is now.
Easts v Wests.
80 minutes I'll never get back.
So different to what I was brought up on and appeared slow, dull and lifeless.
First and last live game.
But have developed a minor tv interest in the Storm, so not a mindless denier.

Geez Roy, you really gave the game a go, once in 55 years ! Much faster game now and more points scored. The major bonus with Rugby League is that it transfers very well to TV and what you see is what you get. In AFL there is so much to see at the ground with off the ball stuff. Hence why crowds are always going to be much higher in AFL.

[Bloods05]

Geez Roy, you really gave the game a go, once in 55 years ! Much faster game now and more points scored. The major bonus with Rugby League is that it transfers very well to TV and what you see is what you get. In AFL there is so much to see at the ground with off the ball stuff. Hence why crowds are always going to be much higher in AFL.

Well.....that's not the only reason....

[bloodspirit]

I grew up following RL but abandoned it 25-30 years ago. Rather I felt like it abandoned me after my club was merged and the whole SuperLeague thing happened. Anyway, I've moved on and never looked back. I have no interest in league these days - I don't know who the current premiers are and I don't watch State of Origin. And I have no sense of loss, even though I have heard that league is apparently perfect for televisation. Following the Swans is way more rewarding.

For a while I took an interest in rugby, particularly in the Wallabies glory years from about 1998-2004. The rules and rulings were a bit impenetrable but I liked it ok and loved going toe to toe with the All Blacks while we were competitive. Plus the players of that era were pretty admirable, John Eales in particular. I don't remember exactly how or when but I long ago stopped following rugby. I can't remember when I last watched a game but it was probably a World Cup final we lost several years ago. And it had been a long while since I had watched a match before that.

Anyway, what's my point? Just that I agree rugby is going the way of the dodo and doesn't deserve more coverage than AFL in Sydney media - it can only be getting it because of commercial agenda and arrangements behind the scenes to try and prop up rugby. Also I just wanted to pour some cold water on league because I have found so much more satisfaction following footy, and following the Swans. Both the code (although not so much its administration by the AFL) and the club are more worthy of my time and attention.