One domestic NZ competition?
-
-
@duluth said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
Sky pay for games and duration. Make a shorter, tougher season, and Sky will pay less because there are people who only subscribe for the rugby, so if the professional rugby season is shorter, Sky will lose subscription revenue.
SRA is the shorter tougher season
I'm advocating for a longer professional competition with the best players
After listening to Ben Darwin on the rugby pod (which was interesting even if I thought I'd really like to see the maths they used to generate those stats), another way of dealing with the gap in rugby for the 'professionals' during Sept/Oct as mentioned by some above would be having an 'academy league' where teams have to play a certain number of development players (or players under a certain age with a certain number of caps) in their team. Of course they could also surround them with some of their professionals to keep some structure and maintain a reasonable level. This would allow Super teams to develop some cohesion and introduce players at a lower level. It could also punish teams loaded with ABs (assuming that aBs don't get to play) but would fill a supposed 'gap' in the schedule.
-
@rapido said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@dan54 said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@rapido Not sure if you have been watching any rugby in NZ. You know where we have a structure that involves cluc rugby, step up to Provincial rugby to Super and then to Test rugby? It is a very good reason why NZ rugby is so strong, what are you suggesting we drop provincial rugby? Or Super rugby, an elite comp between Provoncial and Test ?Sure as hell won't get much agreement from those charged with turning out test high level teams.
It was a genuine question. There is no current permanent structure, apart from 5 NZ teams. The only constant.
As for your point about the structure producing good test rugby players, I disagree.
The structure , assuming old S18, or new SR Tt, is designed, or by unintended consequences, set up to create 4 strong NZ teams, usually 1 crap nz team, and if lucky 1 strong overseas team. And anywhere from 7 to 13 passenger teams.
Last year when we had SRA only, TJ Perenara publicly went on record to say it was too hard. So, what he is saying us that NZs top rugby players cant cope with tough week in - week out rugby. They can only cope with tough rugby as long as they have a sunwolves or rebels to intersperse with them.
Hence NZs shit ability to string 3 intence rugby tests in a row. E.g. a quarter, senior, final.
We are talent wasters, gross underachiever. Coasters.
The 5 nz teams might produce strong test rugby players if an e.g. Beauden Barrett was free to transfer to Rebels and drag them along by his bootlaces week in - week out. But it is designed to concentrate them in a few teams who spend 3/4 of the season bullying numpties.
No it actually concentrates them in a few teams that actually get combinations etc going. It was no accident how dominant ABs were when Auckland was incredibly strong (and beating up numpties as you say) and most of ABs were made up of that team. Same as AB team from 2009 onwards with a heavy Crusader's precence. Of course it not going to guarantee wins, but you better to have your talent in only a few teams than spread around more than they need to be.
If super rugby hasn't produced good test teams, how have ABs had results they have had over last 20 odd years,? -
@kiwiwomble said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@dan54 said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@rapido Not sure if you have been watching any rugby in NZ. You know where we have a structure that involves cluc rugby, step up to Provincial rugby to Super and then to Test rugby? It is a very good reason why NZ rugby is so strong, what are you suggesting we drop provincial rugby? Or Super rugby, an elite comp between Provoncial and Test ?Sure as hell won't get much agreement from those charged with turning out test high level teams.
it doesn't really work like that though does it. lots go straight to super (development) from school now, maybe only join a NPC team out of convenience if theyre already going to play super for the local team
the "levels" are all mixed up, hence at least my talk of some rationalisation
No it doesn't work like that all the time, but very few players actually go straight through to Super rugby. I struggling to think of anyone at moment in Super teams that haven't played NPC rugby first, There maybe one or 2 , but let me know who they are. Wouldn't be more than 1 or 2 at most.
-
@gt12 said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@duluth said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
Sky pay for games and duration. Make a shorter, tougher season, and Sky will pay less because there are people who only subscribe for the rugby, so if the professional rugby season is shorter, Sky will lose subscription revenue.
SRA is the shorter tougher season
I'm advocating for a longer professional competition with the best players
After listening to Ben Darwin on the rugby pod (which was interesting even if I thought I'd really like to see the maths they used to generate those stats), another way of dealing with the gap in rugby for the 'professionals' during Sept/Oct as mentioned by some above would be having an 'academy league' where teams have to play a certain number of development players (or players under a certain age with a certain number of caps) in their team. Of course they could also surround them with some of their professionals to keep some structure and maintain a reasonable level. This would allow Super teams to develop some cohesion and introduce players at a lower level. It could also punish teams loaded with ABs (assuming that aBs don't get to play) but would fill a supposed 'gap' in the schedule.
I enjoyed the Ben Darwin thing too gt. Like the academy idea, though think the super U20s almost does that, and really NPC is also pretty important for same thing. If we didn't have NPC even as semi pro comp we would have an awful lot of players going to semi pro clubs overseas.
-
-
@dan54 The problem i have here is these leagues are used as development tools for test matches, to create the strongest test teams.
It means the domestic league itself is always 2nd tier. I think league has the balance right (between club and international) they just lack in meaningful international matches/competition.
-
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
If the Crusaders played tests, where would they rank internationally?
I think most of the Super sides in NZ would beat a lot of international teams.
Tenth. They'd beat Japan easily, and be competitive against those just above that
-
@muddyriver said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@dan54 The problem i have here is these leagues are used as development tools for test matches, to create the strongest test teams.
It means the domestic league itself is always 2nd tier. I think league has the balance right (between club and international) they just lack in meaningful international matches/competition.
Yeah, it’s this whole top down approach...get some good results for the abs but things get a bit neglected the further you get from the ab
-
@muddyriver said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@dan54 The problem i have here is these leagues are used as development tools for test matches, to create the strongest test teams.
It means the domestic league itself is always 2nd tier. I think league has the balance right (between club and international) they just lack in meaningful international matches/competition.
Look I don't watch league, so from my limited knowledge isn't same there? Not for test teams, as they don't really have meaningful ones, but aren't comps below NRL used to develop NRL players? It is a fact all sports use the comp below to develop players in some way to feed the one above, doesn't make either comp less meaningful.
-
I'd go for a regular 14 team NPC with all teams receiving equal NZRU funding: eg what they spend now on salaries for five franchises, equally distributed among all 14 teams. Then add a maximum each team can use themselves on players, weighted in some way based on size. This way the larger unions aren't penalised via a socialist structure but the smaller unions by way of NZRU funding also have the ability to sign big names.
This would be played early in the year, with a six team finals series to find the winner. These teams then go into a 16 team SR comp with five Australian, two PI and three Japanese teams, in two pools.
-
@machpants said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
If the Crusaders played tests, where would they rank internationally?
I think most of the Super sides in NZ would beat a lot of international teams.
Tenth. They'd beat Japan easily, and be competitive against those just above that
When the Blues were a basket case we beat the Lions.
I think most of our teams are better now.
-
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@machpants said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
If the Crusaders played tests, where would they rank internationally?
I think most of the Super sides in NZ would beat a lot of international teams.
Tenth. They'd beat Japan easily, and be competitive against those just above that
When the Blues were a basket case we beat the Lions.
I think most of our teams are better now.
I think you over estimate the strength of a lions team still meeting each other and jet lagged!
-
@machpants said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@machpants said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@kirwan said in One domestic NZ competition?:
@godder said in One domestic NZ competition?:
If the Crusaders played tests, where would they rank internationally?
I think most of the Super sides in NZ would beat a lot of international teams.
Tenth. They'd beat Japan easily, and be competitive against those just above that
When the Blues were a basket case we beat the Lions.
I think most of our teams are better now.
I think you over estimate the strength of a lions team still meeting each other and jet lagged!
And you aren’t considering how bad the blues were back then
The cream of NH rugby…
-
If it's close to test match intensity, would a structure of fewer teams but more weeks off work better? Sounds like more recovery time might be in order for the NZ derby games, so if teams played fortnightly but spread out so every week had games, the player welfare would be better, and Sky would get a nice long season to sell to punters.
