'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Snowy said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Starting again would be retarded.
I prefer intellectually challenged!
I'm pretty sure I didn't even tard a first time, so I definitely didn't redo it.
Landers were always my second team, I moved to the other side of the world so wasn't immersed in the capital, Hammett eroded my love of the canes and ditched players I had a real connection to. I found myself enjoying the Landers more and switched naturally...then they go and win a fucken title! How could I go back. Nice to have a connection with the old man on it too. Bonesetta loves her canes though, as does my ma and bro.
To make some family fun we've assigned the chiefs, crusaders and blues to Bonesettas's father, mother and brother.
I went to pretty much every Chiefs home game in 1996-1997 and then like you the Hammettuer completely eroded my love of the Canes ... you were lucky you weren't here to hear him go on weekend radio and lay into the players, and then have Alama have to go on a day later and try and back track those comments. And like you, the moment I switched to the Chiefs they won, but I was actually pretty confident they'd do well after picking up Rennie.
...id say going to watch the chiefs probably eroded your love of the canes too...i probably would have cone and watched the canes....
I saw lots of Canes games in those early days too - went to the first ever game and a bunch of games at Athletic Park. I was living in the Tron at the time so could easily go to those Chiefs home games. They were crap but they had Bunce and Little.
I actually went to nearly every Wellington home game in the Hammetuers first year, every day we'd arrive in Welly to nice sunny weather and by the time the game started it would be sideways rain ... I may have deserted even without the Hammettuer.
-
-
@Bones said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Nepia ahhh Friday nights in the capital, go for a beer after work...."shall we go watch the canes?". Head to a rugby match less than ten mins walk away. Awesome.
If I moved home I might switch back...
We were driving down from Palmy, but would usually head down about lunch time, have a few work meetings or go to Te Papa if the nieces were coming, eat some good Malay and then go and get saturated at the game. Stop in Paraparaumu for takeaways on the way back.
-
I agree that a domestic competition focused on derbies, followed by an international franchise competition would be the best of both worlds.
So we could have a 5 team super Aotearoa comp followed by a championship round with the other competitions (let’s say Super Oz, Super SA, Super Pacific).
My only concern is that money would flow to the teams who play in that second round and you could get a Matthew effect established pretty quickly.
-
@gt12 we kind of have that now with playoffs etc
Is like to see something lie a daft, something in the lead up and potentially to help boost team on poor form
i kind of miss the old day when the free agents were announced, those not needed by their home franchises, we got a few good bloke through that
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@junior let's agree to disagree. The likelihood of us ever finding out what they'd do if the Rebels had a good run is pretty bloody slight!
Fair enough. I agree in principle it's all there to be successful. When the franchise first started, there was a huge amount of excitement and anticipation around town and they got some pretty good crowds in the first year, despite their poor unfurled record. I think what really hurt them early, without that early success, was the AFL went even more mental and we've had a period of relative success for some of the massive Melbourne clubs (Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond), which makes it hard to get new eyeballs from that market. Also, playing Friday night games, while suiting the local rugby community, who have school / club rugby commitments the next day, makes it hard to get new viewers when you've got an AFL blockbuster at the MCG on at the same time.
-
I'm not sure how it could be structured, but I also like the idea of a Super championship and Super plate (with different sponsors this wouldn't sound too strange)
So for example:
Championship: Top two ranked teams from each competition play quarter, semi, final
Plate: 3rd and 4th ranked teams from each competition play quarter, semi, final
That would mean that one team would miss out, but the local competitions could have some systems in place to make sure that these guys didn't perenially stay there?
-
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I had better things to do but still looked and it appears that Australia has consistently had a good team in Super Rugby. Often with another midpack, but almost always with a couple of cellar dwellers. Sometimes 80% in the bottom half.
The bloat in Super Rugby is correlated with this. From a revenue perspective more teams meant more fixtures so the TV revenue was higher. I felt the quality took a dramatic fall after the 2011 RWC and again after 2015. To make new franchises competitive the depth and overall quality of existing teams fell.
Once people stop watching the product is worth less. For me the quality needs to be high to get people viewing again. That excludes the Force and Rebels, neither of which would beat even the Chiefs right now.
The Chiefs aren't actually a bad team though. The 5 New Zealand teams normally do well so we have to accept that.
A 5 team professional competition isn't sustainable and will get stale quick. Plus the players don't support having all of these derbies. There are really two options for NZ Rugby:
a) Don't go with Australia and create one or multiple Pacific/Japanese teams which will dilute quality.
b) Allow in four Australian teams (and perhaps one Pacific/Japanese team) which will dilute quality. -
-
I’m not sure where you get that from, the corporate teams will want in - it’s just working out the right model.
One option would be to let the top two teams join an international finals series, or divide out 5 of the best teams to a Super league conference and the remaining into one or two conferences of the J league.
Top League meets Super Rugby: bold plan to keep Japan involved
As the SANZAAR nations try to map out Super Rugby in the post-COVID-19 world, a bold plan to include the best Japanese teams is on the table.
-
-
Do you know anything about rugby in Japan btw? Follow a team? Live there?
Report: Japanese executive pushing for Top League inclusion in new Southern Hemisphere competition
As the war of words rages on between New Zealand and Australia over the future of a revamped Super Rugby competition, Japan has expressed his eagerness to stay involved in the Southern Hemisphere club game.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200719/p2g/00m/0sp/020000c
-
Some form of non- Australasian integration is probably necessary for the money. As far as I know the world champions league idea is still on the table, alternatively a Pacific comp with Japan and/or US etc. could work. Have the regular season Trans- Ta$man and then have a champions league like playoffs.
-
The TSF demographics conversation is over here now:
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/4043/tsf-demographics -
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Both nations, incidentally, are supportive of a Pasifika side also competing, but Australia believes it will take at least 12 months to set up the team and has recommended pushing their entry out to 2022 and expanding the contest to 11 franchises. It will probably take Australia and NZ that long to agree on whether to base them in Auckland or western Sydney.
Where this “insolence” leaves negotiations no one is quite sure. A Kiwi request to send over the contract documents for Australia to peruse was rejected by Clarke, who flatly insisted they would not wash. What was most remarkable about that rejection was that he made that ruling before going into a RA board meeting, which suggests all directors fully support Australia standing up for itself.
Australia did not need to be reminded yesterday by NZR’s unofficial media arm, the New Zealand Herald, that Australian teams are “embarrassingly out of their depth against Kiwi teams right now”. This particularly holds true for the Brumbies, who beat the Chiefs 26-14 in Hamilton on February 22, and the Rebels, who beat the Highlanders 28-22 in Dunedin one week later, and the Reds, who outscored the Crusaders four tries to three but lost 24-20 in Christchurch a further week later when they couldn’t land a kick. Oh, and the Brumbies also were terribly out of their depth when thrashed 23-22 by the Highlanders after the bell in Canberra on February 15.
No doubt as the Herald intended to mention, but somehow forgot, these were all results recorded “right now”. Or as “right now” as a global pandemic would permit.
Australia’s preference is to engage in a trans- Ta$man competition with New Zealand. Yet all indications are it has no intention of allowing the NZR to determine which Australian teams will be play and which are surplus to Kiwi requirements.
It is unthinkable that, if the situation was reversed, Australia would be advocating the demise of, say, the Chiefs, who now find themselves at the bottom of the Super Rugby Aotearoa table. That is not something good neighbours demand of each other.
One lesson Australia learned from 2017, when it culled the Western Force from Super Rugby at the behest of SANZAAR, was never again to lose control of its autonomy. Besides, it is now building towards a 2027 World Cup and realises that the more professional teams it boasts, the more the commercial value.
If need be, RA will embark on a super-sized version of this year’s Super Rugby AU competition next year. McLennan has indicated he is prepared to welcome foreign players from around the world – three per franchise – along with a possible team from South Africa, which also was on the receiving end of some offhand treatment by NZ last week. Effectively, its presence in Super Rugby was terminated in a NZR press release.
-
Wayne Smith is right. The Aussies can support 3 decent teams. It's bullshit to pretend they don't
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Wayne Smith in the Aus today. Discussions appear to be going well then:
Is this the same level of probity the Australian brought to RA's governance and broadcast contract negotiations?
‘Expressions of insolence’ from NZ as rugby talks go off the rails
The meeting was supposed to be about Australian “expressions of interest” in the Kiwis’ planned trans- Ta$man competition, but as Rugby Australia CEO Rob Clarke listened to his New Zealand Rugby counterpart Mark Robinson on Monday, all he heard were “expressions of insolence”.
Granted, that remarkable opinion only comes second-hand, from the chairman of Rugby Australia Hamish McLennan. “Clarkie said it was more ‘expressions of insolence’,” McLennan told The Australian when questioned on the outcome of the video hook-up.
All things considered, then, not one of the more enlightened days in the history of the two countries that have played each other more often in rugby Tests than any two nations on the planet.
There had been some hope, following the release on Friday of the NZR communique, that the Kiwis might have moderated their customary “master-servant” mode of dealing with Australia. That, at least, was how McLennan optimistically interpreted the fact that Kiwis had dropped their “take it or leave it” eight-team competition — in which there was only room for two Australian teams — and substituted an “eight to 10-team” competition.
The same '“take it or leave it” eight-team competition' straw man the Australian media invented? The one reported before the Aratipu review had been provided?
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
RA would do well to address the reporting in Australian media, or get consigned to the scrap heap.
-
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
But the optimism lasted only until Clarke’s Zoom meeting with Robinson and the NZR’s chief rugby officer Nigel Cass, where the New Zealanders are understood to have reverted to type, utterly rejecting Australia’s proposal of a 10-team competition – with five teams from NZ, five from Australia.
Just noting that Australia utterly rejected the 8 team concept.
The real challenge is what do either side bring to the table. Because it better be good rugby, or good funding (eyeballs), or both. I strongly support a trans-tasman comp, but that doesn't necessarily mean a 5 team Aussie representation.
I tend to agree with RA about the Pacific side though - assuming it gets off the ground, when could it sensibly start playing? A better option would be genuine talent development in the islands... but I can't see that happening in the short term.
We really need Japan in the medium term. Should be talking to them about the timing and feasibility of it
