Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@kirwan dont get me wrong, im not 100% for it, just kind in of in my head
the way i see it is more long term, a few NZ players help to make the aussie teams a bit more competitive and then, assuming AU was run properly, they use that to grow the profile and get more young players in
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kirwan dont get me wrong, im not 100% for it, just kind in of in my head
the way i see it is more long term, a few NZ players help to make the aussie teams a bit more competitive and then, assuming AU was run properly, they use that to grow the profile and get more young players in
It's worth exploring but probably needs some open thinking to be worthwhile. It may be a case that in order to get past the problems we have with isolation and stregth disparity that the franchise concept needs to be taken further to a controlled club like system where the best coaches and players aren't restricted by country.
-
@crucial agreed, i really wish NZR had spent more time making the franchises more attractive as far as outside investment and left the AB's alone, they way there running things the AB's are the only thing people think is worth anything and really limits things
-
-
@kirwan Daniel Braid was arguably in career best form when he played for the Reds, but was ineligible for both ABs and Wobbs.
I personally think there are grounds for a few marquee players to be given the option, especially if in the same comp as I think it would help the comp and the profile of the Aus/PI/Japanese team if this is where things go
-
I don't think it would really do much. The kind of players Australia need are the ones that provide depth. Squad players who are pushing to make the first 15/get selected in the wider AB squad. You'd get maybe a handful of tenured ABs moving over, or guys who aren't good enough.
Won't fix shit.
I like the Champions Cup style format. That way the domestic comp can be what each country needs it to be locally (ideally in Aus that'd be something with a national footprint - say 10 teams). Then we can have a few games where the Kiwis rack up cricket scores against Japan or Aus opponents and pat themselves on the back for being the bestest.
-
@kiwiwomble and if we follow a Champions Cup format we can just get on with our own shit without having to worry about what the other party is doing. You wanna go back to NPC? great, our best 2 can play the best 2 NPC teams.
-
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
Maybe we need the Trans Ta$man company first, then Aotearoa. It’s been a let down for me so far.
Aussies are getting chewed up and spat out.
If they are going come play with the big boys, five Aussie teams is far too many. They simply don't have the playing depth to compete.
-
@nta said in Force v Highlanders:
@frye said in Force v Highlanders:
Almost like Australia would be better off with 3-4 teams...
Not really.
Better coaching and better systems would be more help.
Maybe, but in hindsight neither is it the height of arrogance, just to suggest it, that many thought it to be last year.
-
-
Blues and Canes the only teams in control of their destiny atm..... That's pretty silly 40% of the way thru a comp.
-
There’s now added interest in this comp with the NZ teams 10-0. Who is going to crack first?
-
