The future of NZ Rugby
-
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
-
@gt12 said in The future of NZ Rugby:
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
just realised, though, that it makes a tour worthwhile again. 10 days in Argentina or SA, 2 AB tests away from home, plus maybe a midweek game. Would be awesome fun!
-
"The added bonus of making the Rugby Championship a more difficult competition to win by reverting the number of annual matches to just four per side is also a prominent factor in the scheduling overhaul."
That is totaly wrong, there is still the same number of matches. RP/NZH can't count, muppets.
-
Still think they would have been better off following the 6N format, where you still play each team, but alternate home and away each year.
Only having the Boks 1 time in NZ every other year would mean those ones when they are here more significant again.
But I guess thats the point, lets just do something different and see how that works?
-
Rugby: SANZAAR faces axe as details of NZ Rugby's 'Aratipu' review emerge (video in article)
Southern hemisphere rugby could be set for a major shakeup , with doubts emerging over the ongoing existence of SANZAAR. Sources tell Newshub that the governing body could disband altogether to leave international unions to go it alone, in one of a handful of key recommendations to come from the 'Aratipu' report commissioned by New Zealand Rugby in April. Newshub can reveal that SANZAAR's days of running the competition appear to be over from next year. As it stands, Super Rugby involves teams from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina. The draft 'Aratipu' review recommends major changes from 2021 - namely a trans- Ta$man competition with the addition of a team from the Pacific. Without teams from South Africa and Argentina, SANZAAR's governance of the competition would inevitably cease. The proposed changes to the competition have been welcomed by those involved. "As long as it keeps the qualities that are making this competition really successful," says Blues coach Leon MacDonald. "Strong teams right across the board, strong games... there's a little bit of a recipe here that as long as they don't deviate too far away from would be well received." But the 'Aratipu' review highlights the need for Super Rugby to be a feeder into something with much broader international appeal. It's understood that is what's seen as the missing piece to the Super Rugby puzzle and was identified by review chair Don Mackinnon from the outset. "Do we look at a Heineken cup type playoff model in the short to medium term whereby we're looking at the best of the best playing," Mackinnon queried at the announcement of the review in April. Crusaders coach Scott Robertson has also expressed his desire for there to be something more for the Super Rugby winners. "I love the idea of how we can connect up if we have a competition down here and then we can link to the north, that would make it pretty special," Robertson suggested in May. SANZAAR's sole purpose moving forward would be to oversee the Rugby Championship. But Tuesday's developments suggest that after quarter of a century, southern hemisphere rugby's united front could soon be over.So, really not that much more than we already knew.
-
-
@mofitzy_ I suspect the Jaguares would have no other option than joining the Súper Liga Americana de Rugby, if that competition survives. I can't see them joining the MLR, which probably has a slightly higher standard of rugby. The Jags would dominate both competitions though, even if they lose all their best players to Europe ....
-
Just a few thoughts on the PI team.
If the PI team would be based in Suva (or Nukuʻalofa, or Apia), the independence from the PI unions and governments should first be guaranteed. There now is too much corruption and political influence in rugby overthere. You don't want the situation in which a president or minister can sack a coach or influence selections, or do a money grab and players not getting paid.
Also, wherever the PI franchise would be based, they'd also need some guarantees that the non-PI franchises don't lure the most talented players away from the PI franchise, if these non-PI franchises would be richer and could pay players more. At the same time, you'd want some guarantees that the PI franchise first and foremost selects players from the Islands, and doesn't drain the player pool in NZ (and Oz). Otherwise, you'd get the same effect as a 6th NZ franchise would have, without any benefit to the local, PI player development.
Maybe there'd need to be a foreign player cap, just like NZ now has (with having PI heritage not automatically making you a domestic player)? This needs some more thought, obviously.
-
I disagree on your caps and nationalities thing. One PI team based there is not going to make a big impact on players in NZ and Oz, or thethree international teams of the PI Nations. Super rugby doesn't need those sort of blocks, is not international rugby and you need freedom for players to choose where to play. It's also pro rugby, so you're right in that the governance just be informant off the corrupt PI RUs, otherwise we'll have murdering Bros on three board!
-
@Stargazer said in The future of NZ Rugby:
"As long as it keeps the qualities that are making this competition really successful," says Blues coach Leon MacDonald.
"Strong teams right across the board, strong games... there's a little bit of a recipe here that as long as they don't deviate too far away from would be well received.
This is key.
That's unlikely to occur if Aust has 5 teams unless NZ players are allowed to play for these teams. Even NZ needs to change to ensure we have 5 even teams. Rather than 1 strong team, one quite strong team and three just making up the numbers
-
-
i think im in the minority, i tend to enjoy the NPC a bit more because there is less forgone conclusion results
I get a bit bored with the same teams winning continuously, the novelty of watching a team demolish teams ever week, even if they are showing off the best rugby you can imagine...gets old to me
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah the idea of 8 NZ teams, + 1 PI + 5 Oz, would make it more even, but not quite so good
NZ don't have the players. Or money to afford 8 fully professional teams. I would prefer 5 + 3 +1 = 8 strong teams. But even here there must be a even spread of the top players. Due to a financial structure that makes it impossible for one team to have too many of the top players
8 teams where all team have a good chance of winning and do over say 15 years (rather than 1 team winning year after year and other just making up the numbers) would be a very successful competition
But Aust will never agree to only three teams so there needs to be a way to improve their sides. Otherwise it will fail in Aust. (Even this current NZ 5 team competition is a bit disappointing as the winner is almost known before it kicks off. Maybe the blues can cause an upset though)
-
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australia-only option on table as NZ play hard ball over Super Rugby
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
If true, there's the small problem of RA not having the depth to field that many. So the teams will get flogged and punters won't watch. We've been down this road before.
Then if NZR permit selection of players from off-shore, would you really countenance first XV All Blacks being coached here in noncompetitive teams?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by ABs selection? That's irrelevant to whether Oz will join a comp with us or not. Oz will NOT accept a 2 or 3 Oz team transtasman comp, so why bother planning on it? If the article is true, and it's come from Ozzie sources so may well be stirring bollox, half of the NZR Board needs to get their heads out of their arses, cos Oz would rather go it alone than take a 2/3 team comp with us. It would be somestic public suicide for them to ditch (say) the Rebels, and the resurrected Force - and possibly even the Brumbiess FFS, just to join with us. It is the height of arrogance by those Board members to think otherwise. It might be all made up, but it is a worrying thought that some on the Board are so far up in their Ivory Tower that they think this could ever happen.
-
First of all, I'm not sure I believe that Aussie article. They're shitstirring on a regular basis.
But because of Covid-19, it will be difficult to plan beyond 2021. Maybe they should just do the 5 NZ, 4 Aussie and 1 PI teams (or just 5 NZ and 5 Aussie teams) comp in 2021; let the NZ teams smash the hell out of the weaker Aussie teams (and possibly the PI team as well), giving NZR the ammunition to negotiate for a more permanent solution beyond 2021?
And then the new, more long-term structure could be two-tiered, maybe 6 teams each. The top 6 teams from 2021 in the top tier, and then the remaining four teams, joined by two more teams (PI, Jap?) in the second tier? With promotion/relegation between the tiers?
By the way, is it realistic to expect the establishment of a PI franchise - with all the political issues involved - for the 2021 season? Or will they just throw in the Fijian Drua with a few added Tongan and Samoan players?
-
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Machpants said in The future of NZ Rugby:
@Winger yeah I agree on the 5+3+1, but Oz will not agree too that, thus to even it out more NZ teams.
And this just came out. If this is true, and half of the NZ board think that NZ is so awesome that Oz will join with just two teams, then they need to resign and go on drug detox. There is really no point on planning things which will never happen. NZ have to plan on 4 or 5 Oz teams or none. Oz are big enough too have a domestic comp, and their money is so shit ATM that they may give up on anything other than a decent domestic comp and their wallabies players all in overseas leagues
Australian officials were alarmed to learn of a preference within sections of New Zealand's top brass for a very small Australian presence in Super Rugby.
at a high level you might be right...but the profile in aus is just so low at the moment, i think they need to re build
so, if the 5 NZ super teams then i think only 2-3 aussie teams makes sense, as long as AR focus on building depth with a domestic comp
IF they want to use this as their domestic comp and have 5 aus teams then i think that either aligns with our NPC or NZ having more super teams to even things up
OR, and im not in favour of this
they open AB selection to players playing in aus too so the odd person might get lured to melbourne or sydney to boost them
