Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
Seriously Mods, how’s that downvote button coming along?
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
this has always been my prefered option but normally get shot down with "the unions are too small" etc
if this was replacing both the NPC and SR would you make it a 28 game home and away?
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up? based on last year that wold put Naki, soutland counties and Manawatu down
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean hard to disagree with that. The administration is diabolical. But thats not a reason to agree to a bad comp structure.
The premises that we can improve by condensing teams or by playing Kiwis regularly doesn't seem to have worked in the past. Not sure why it will suddenly start working now.
Consider the counterfactual then, would Australian rugby be better/ worse off if it hadn't?
I'd be supportive of doubling the NZ franchises in a one conference ladder with semi finals. More content for broadcasters, certainty for supporters that there'll be fixtures on every weekend and avoids teams taking the piss having All Blacks on the bench waiting to replace All Blacks.
I'd also get rid of the RC.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
...thats the point with a promotion and relegation game though, if you win you've kind of proven you as good as the other team
The point is to add some spice to games at the bottom of the table, have to avoid coming last so you wont risk dropping
It would be hard to say the Naki deserve to go down forever and northand stay up forever (based on last years results) when they finished on the same points
-
The (least amount of) tinkering way to 'solve' SRTT in almost it's current form. (Assuming going to full round-robin once pandemic is over).
-
A 6th NZ team, the Knightiwhas, not Moana Pacifica, to weaken the NZ teams. (As I've said ad-nauseum - MP won't weaken NZ franchises but they will be weak themselves as the poor little cousin with no equal access to uncle's wallet).
-
Allow open contracting of all Australian, NZ, Pacific players anywhere within the comp.
-
Elevate Razor to AB coach. Appoint Ian Foster or Mark Hammett as Crusaders coach. Jokes aside, the Canterbury coaching conveyer belt is looking as sick as the CBHS first-five factory. just get Razor out will probably solve it no matter who they appoint.
As I'd prefer the whole thing to implode rather than limp on, I don't usually tout this wisdom. I'm not one for tinkering on this one.
-
-
@kiwiwomble would it be auto promotion or play off?
As we know the latter more often than not, doesnt work, the gap between the bottom team in the 1st div to the best in the 2nd div is usually too large.
-
@taniwharugby id be happy with auto but i think rugby people tend to prefer a playoff
it may not often result in anyone dropping but at least proves teams are where they belong
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwimurph said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life whats the compromise though?
I don't know! I don't know what they both want!! i can't see why a 10 team home and away can't work, with a top 4. But then i am not in possession of all teh facts.
And, i totally get the lack of appeal in Australia for a comp that doesn't look, on current evidence, that will have any Aussie teams in the post-season.
Doesn't the second part answer the first?
yes, but i don't know how you get an Aussie team in without conferences. And you can't run a conference when you just play everyone home and away. So then it's 3 rounds, 2 v Domestic, 1 v Trans- Ta$man (like this year but more mixed). Conference winners to the semi along with 2 "wildcards"?
I can hear the howls of outrage from NZ fans already.
This will be very unpopular, but we have to have conferences with probably that system you just explained, which means that the 'Final' may not have the best two teams in the comp - just like the NBA and many other conference competitions.
12 team competition divided into two conferences by country who go to a Conference/Country (i.e., Super Rugby Oz, Super Rugby Aotearoa) Championship and the winners play in the Trans-tasman final.
I'd set it up so that on either side, three teams qualify for the post season.
Conference winner gets the first week off while 2nd and 3rd play.
Country/Conference final
Trans-tasman final.It's not pretty but it will probably pay the bills.
-
@rapido said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The (least amount of) tinkering way to 'solve' SRTT in almost it's current form. (Assuming going to full round-robin once pandemic is over).
- A 6th NZ team, the Knightiwhas, not Moana Pacifica, to weaken the NZ teams. (As I've said ad-nauseum - MP won't weaken NZ franchises but they will be weak themselves as the poor little cousin with no equal access to uncle's wallet).
Allow open contracting of all Australian, NZ, Pacific players anywhere within the comp
- Elevate Razor to AB coach. Appoint Ian Foster or Mark Hammett as Crusaders coach. Jokes aside, the Canterbury coaching conveyer belt is looking as sick as the CBHS first-five factory. just get Razor out will probably solve it no matter who they appoint.
As I'd prefer the whole thing to implode rather than limp on, I don't usually tout this wisdom. I'm not one for tinkering on this one.
I actually think this, or a variant of this might be how to level competiveness quickly. May not have it completely open. Eg. Maybe only a certain amount of externals per franchise, but conceptually I like it
-
For a trans- Ta$man competition to have any integrity all teams need to play each other. To me, SR TT ended up being like the Europa League when we'd already watched the Champions League.
If you are going to have conferences then the SFs should be NZ1 vs Aust2 and Aust1 vs NZ2. The top team from each country hosts a SF and the winners play in the final.
-
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
I think so, it would bring sponsors back in general. I am quite sure some NSW old boy will have significantly deep pockets to invest in his team if he felt he could get them winning again. There is still a lot of money around ...just not currently invested in the game.
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
i think so, the goldie/brisbane sydney or melbourne would be attractive to lots of guys when they currently living in Hamilton or dunedin
especially if they thought it didnt hinder their chances of making the All Blacks
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@bayimports would anyone from NZ actually want to move to a shitty Aus franchise though? I think they'd be paying a huge premium or getting sloppy seconds (thirds?).
I expect that would make the Force quite competitive though. Twiggy has the cash for a couple spare All Blacks.
i think so, the goldie/brisbane sydney or melbourne would be attractive to lots of guys when they currently living in Hamilton or dunedin
especially if they thought it didnt hinder their chances of making the All Blacks
It clearly wouldn't under the current regime.
-
if these guys are playing in the same comp so supposedly the same level, and all the NZ teams have still managed to field All Blacks when they've gone through their shit periods, so you can say playing for a lesser team stopped them
BB signed Auckland before their resurgence last year, he obviously thought he'd proved enough and went looking for a different lifestyle and or challenge
-
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
are you suggesting the Aussie team would deliberately hobble wouldbe all blacks to help the wallabies?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I remain astonished at any New Zealander who thinks offshoring the selection, development and welfare of All Blacks to our competitors is a good idea.
are you suggesting the Aussie team would deliberately hobble wouldbe all blacks to help the wallabies?
I'm explicitly stating they wouldn't give a fuck about making their All Blacks play 80mins every week. That's before we dwell on what position they'd play and their "coaching".
-
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
evil aussie coach: hehehe that will teach the stupid kiwis, i got an extra 20 minutes out of him
media: he now has an injury and you have to play your second string next week against the crusaders
evil aussie coach: was worth it for the motherland!
