Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
Super Rugby: Australia poised to reject NZR's proposed trans-Tasman, Pacific model | Newshub
One NZ Rugby proposal reportedly features just two Australian teams.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@snowy almost guaranteed too now...thanks
Rather you than us, and we are more than capable of it, so you're welcome.
-
@shark if you actually look at win percentage and overall success in the comp only the Brumbies have ever been consistently competitive. And even they only won the comp a couple times more than a decade ago.
I love this fantasy world you guys have concocted where RA are gunna start cutting teams to ensure SR is suitable for NZ.
Setting aside the competitive arguments, cutting teams is clearly not what fans want, so why should they. What's the point of rugby? Plus who do you cut? Force are probably the second best supported side.
-
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
Super Rugby: Australia poised to reject NZR's proposed trans-Tasman, Pacific model | Newshub
One NZ Rugby proposal reportedly features just two Australian teams.
Throw in Sunwolves and Jaguars to make Super X?
-
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Maybe need to think about some form of first and second division, with promotion/relegation?
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark if you actually look at win percentage and overall success in the comp only the Brumbies have ever been consistently competitive. And even they only won the comp a couple times more than a decade ago.
I love this fantasy world you guys have concocted where RA are gunna start cutting teams to ensure SR is suitable for NZ.
Setting aside the competitive arguments, cutting teams is clearly not what fans want, so why should they. What's the point of rugby? Plus who do you cut? Force are probably the second best supported side.
Huh? In your first paragraph you state that the Brumbies have been the only consistently competitive Australian team. But then you say it's fantasy that RA would reduce their teams. The former statement is an argument for doing so. So you agree that the Aussie teams aren't up to it but just think it's ludicrous that RA - having already done it once - might drop a team?
-
@shark exactly. Hence we create our own comp, only this time with blackjack and hookers.
We don't have to deal with losing to you every week. We can expand rather than contract our national footprint and we don't have to alienate a group of existing fans.
The Super Au comp was already way more popular than any other comp or format we've had recently.
A regular TT with only 3 Australian teams would represent at least as much of a gamble, mainly because there is no guarantee it will actually make us competitive.
It seems just as likely to me that you cut a couple of teams to make us more competitive, alienate a bunch of funs, lose a bunch more players overseas and we continue to suck just as much.
-
@taniwharugby happy with that.
-
-
@taniwharugby is the way hope for a red card?
-
@taniwharugby “Reds showed the way” - unfortunately Alex, you can’t all play the Chiefs each week….
-
